Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

[Lepanto]

Certainly, NFP is far less problematic then conventional contraceptive methods. With NFP, the marital act can be completed and there is no possibility of abortifacience, however, the motivation to practice NFP is no different than that of using chemicals or barriers: the elimination of the possibility of conception. Instead of using chemicals or barriers, NFP merely uses “timing” to prevent conception.

In determining the objective morality of an act, we must not only look at the end results, but also the motivation or intent.

Most of the people whom I know who promote NFP have a vested interest in doing so because they practice it and are trying to avoid conception, so I have difficulty seeing their viewpoints as imparital and objective.

Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

 

[1ke]

Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

It **is **a form of birth control.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control.

 

[Paladin_V]

My understanding is this…

There are two problems with contraception and artificial birth control (probably more, but two that I can think of right now). The first deals with the full gift of self and the second deals with openness to God’s will.

First… full gift of self. Let’s assume we agree that sex is reserved for marriage and is a complete gift of oneself, body and soul, to another (in holy matrimony). Sexual intercourse is the highest expression of love between two people and requires the marriage commitment. It is a visible manifestation of God’s love and it is life giving.

In order for sexual intercouse to be meaningful, that is, in order for it to express complete sacrifical love for another, it needs to be a complete gift of oneself and open to life. The key word is complete. It’s not enough to say, “I give some of myself to you.” When you engage in intercourse using contraception, that is precisely what you are saying. You are literally blocking part of the physical gift from entering the other person. When you use chemical birth control, you are killing that gift, denying the possibility of life. The man’s gift to the woman is killed and essentially worthless, since it is incapable of creating life.

With NFP, however, you are giving that gift, in it’s entirety, to the other person. There is nothing in the way of the gift, it is complete.

The second is tied to the first. It is very much correct to say that the intention has much moral bearing on an act. The intention in question here is the openess to life.

During an act of intercourse, God is working and may be willing that life come from that act. When a couple uses contraception and chemical birth control they deny the possibility of life. Effectively, the couple is stating, “not only do we not give all of ourselves to this other person, but we are also not open to the possibility of life, to God’s will.” Now if God wants a baby to be created, well, then perhaps he will cause the condom to break or some sperm to reach the egg without dying anyway. But that’s not the point, the point is that during the intercourse the couple is saying, to the possibility of life and therefore “no” to God’s will. The intention can’t be openess to life with these two options.

With NFP, however, it is intrinsically open to life. The intention in this case is, “Lord, it is not convenient right now for us to have children, but we’re still open to the possibility. We’re going to give to each other fully and if it is your will that children come about, so be it.” With NFP, the couple simply does not have sex during a certain time. Just because they have sex in the infertile period doesn’t mean it isn’t open to the possibility of life. The act is intrinsically opening the door to God. There is nothing that says they have to have sex during the fertile time. God does, however, decree that sex must always be a complete gift of self, or it is a selfish misuse of the gift of sexuality. Contraception and birth control do not allow this comlete gift and so must be wrong.

This is my understanding and the distinctions can sometimes be subtle. If this is in any way unclear, let me know and perhaps we can puzzle it out.

 

[manualman]

As others have alluded to, you are mixing two separate issues:

1. The intentional sterilization of marital sex.
2. The refusal to accept children as a gift from God.

ABC practioners commit both sins.

NFP practitioners might be committing the 2nd, but are not committing the first. Natural Law clearly demonstrates that God does not intend EVERY act of marital sex to result in a new child. If that were the case, the human woman (like some other animals) would not have interest during naturally infertile times nor would her interest continue after menopause. So you can’t really argue that couples are obligated to make love ONLY during the fertile times. And it is nonsense to argue that couples are sinning if they REFRAIN from making love at particular times. Thus, NFP is NOT the sterilization of marital sex, it is the selective use of NATURALLY infertile times to avoid having a child. So what about issue #2? Yup, NFP folk can be guilty of that. But here’s the cool part. NFP users have NOT demolished the God-given link between sex and children. Because we need to abstain for quite a few days each month, we are reminded of our decision to avoid more kids for a time and reminded of the need to reflect on that. It’s no guarantee against sin #2 above, but it works WITH our natural fertility instead of against it - and not by coincidence.

 

[CuriousInIL]

It **is **a form of birth control.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control.

Exactly! Well said.

 

[peary]

Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

Of course it’s another form of “birth control” but is accomplished through the natural order of things. There is nothing wrong in either practicing it or promoting it.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

Read this:

NFP: A Defense and Explanation

 

[dorisbonkers]

…

 

[wanner47]

This article, though a bit long, is very thorough and fascinating. It explains, quite clearly, the difference between NFP and contraception.

Contraception: Why Not? by Janet Smith

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It **is **a form of birth control.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control.

So God dislikes using something manmade to stop contraception but is okay as long as you abstain from sex to avoid contraception? Why is that?

 

[wanner47]

So God dislikes using something manmade to stop contraception but is okay as long as you abstain from sex to avoid contraception? Why is that?

The article I linked earlier answers your question in great detail, but in a nutshell – NFP and abstinence work WITH your God-created fertility. Contraception works AGAINST it.

In 1 Corinthians 7, St. Paul recommends mutual periodic abstinence to married couples: “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” (RSV)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

My understanding is this…

There are two problems with contraception and artificial birth control (probably more, but two that I can think of right now). The first deals with the full gift of self and the second deals with openness to God’s will.

First… full gift of self. Let’s assume we agree that sex is reserved for marriage and is a complete gift of oneself, body and soul, to another (in holy matrimony). Sexual intercourse is the highest expression of love between two people and requires the marriage commitment. It is a visible manifestation of God’s love and it is life giving.

In order for sexual intercouse to be meaningful, that is, in order for it to express complete sacrifical love for another, it needs to be a complete gift of oneself and open to life. The key word is complete. It’s not enough to say, “I give some of myself to you.” When you engage in intercourse using contraception, that is precisely what you are saying. You are literally blocking part of the physical gift from entering the other person. When you use chemical birth control, you are killing that gift, denying the possibility of life. The man’s gift to the woman is killed and essentially worthless, since it is incapable of creating life.

With NFP, however, you are giving that gift, in it’s entirety, to the other person. There is nothing in the way of the gift, it is complete.

The second is tied to the first. It is very much correct to say that the intention has much moral bearing on an act. The intention in question here is the openess to life.

During an act of intercourse, God is working and may be willing that life come from that act. When a couple uses contraception and chemical birth control they deny the possibility of life. Effectively, the couple is stating, “not only do we not give all of ourselves to this other person, but we are also not open to the possibility of life, to God’s will.” Now if God wants a baby to be created, well, then perhaps he will cause the condom to break or some sperm to reach the egg without dying anyway. But that’s not the point, the point is that during the intercourse the couple is saying, to the possibility of life and therefore “no” to God’s will. The intention can’t be openess to life with these two options.

With NFP, however, it is intrinsically open to life. The intention in this case is, “Lord, it is not convenient right now for us to have children, but we’re still open to the possibility. We’re going to give to each other fully and if it is your will that children come about, so be it.” With NFP, the couple simply does not have sex during a certain time. Just because they have sex in the infertile period doesn’t mean it isn’t open to the possibility of life. The act is intrinsically opening the door to God. There is nothing that says they have to have sex during the fertile time. God does, however, decree that sex must always be a complete gift of self, or it is a selfish misuse of the gift of sexuality. Contraception and birth control do not allow this comlete gift and so must be wrong.

This is my understanding and the distinctions can sometimes be subtle. If this is in any way unclear, let me know and perhaps we can puzzle it out.

From what I have read I think you state the Church’s position well. But of course, no contraception can stop God should he wish to infuse life correct? And this would be the same for the NFP couple who hope fervently that God won’t infuse life? So in either case God can. Do you think he does against the wishes of the humans?

Actually, I think the Church has gotten stuck in this position because She alway strives to be internally consistent. I think both methods are used for the same purpose. Niceties of “being fully open to life” and loving fully, are just logical exericizes to justify the doctrine. I can’t imagine the misery of having to use this method and being in no financial/emotional condition to have more children. This I believe places a terrible burden on the marriage bond. Of course it is born more fully by women than men often, especially when there are physical reason why a pregnancy is ill advised. I’ve heard too many stories posted here of people literally taking their health in their hands determined to follow the Church even if it means ruined health or destroyed marriage.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Of course it’s another form of “birth control” but is accomplished through the natural order of things. There is nothing wrong in either practicing it or promoting it.

I certainly see the Church’s subtle distinctions, as have so ably been stated here by several posters, however I fail to conclude that God cannot see it for what it is. I simply cannot understand why God cares whether its natural or not. It may work to keep the Church in logical consistency, but of course the Pharisees were often guilty of form over substance as Jesus often pointed out.

 

[Newbie2]

It **is **a form of birth control.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control.

That’s a pretty good description, but methinks it’s important to distinguish between conception control and birth control e.t. abortion is birth control that does not affect conception.

But that is another arguement…

 

[Ruthie]

One thing no one has mentioned yet:

NFP is the only *complete *method of “birth control.” I.e. it can be used to both postpone pregnancy and to expedite it! You can avoid performing, or choose to perform the marital act during the fertile periods.

Another thing that makes it different is that both spouses must cooperate in the desired outcome. It is not all laid on one of the spouses.

 

[Swan]

From what I have read I think you state the Church’s position well. But of course, no contraception can stop God should he wish to infuse life correct? And this would be the same for the NFP couple who hope fervently that God won’t infuse life? So in either case God can. Do you think he does against the wishes of the humans?

Thanks for saying this. This thought goes through my mind every time I hear that “open to life” phrase - as if God will be stymied by a condom or a pill, or anything else. I think it tends to limit God, if anything. “God wants me to get pregnant but I can’t 'cause I’m on the pill” - excuse me?

 

[surfinpure]

For those who have such disdain for the phrase “opennes to life,” let the record show that not only do faithful, NFP-practicing Catholics claim to be open to life – they prove it! What would you call having 3,4,5,6,7, or 8 children? Would you call that selfishness? Hypocritical? Being unopen to life? Hardly.

The spirit of NFP, in its pure form, is clearly and beautifully demonstrated by the fact that these couples are making the self-sacrificing choice of bringing as many souls into the world as their houses can hold.

SpiritMeadow criticized these couples for their willingness to sacrifice and “believes” that NFP causes great marital strain (although how a person can see into the private lives of thousands of strangers remains a mystery to me). Admittedly, sacrifice has reached the status of a four-letter word in secular America. It’s not only unpopular, but it’s seen as an indictment on everyone else’s lifestyle. However, as Catholics, we know that sacrifice is the way of the Cross. It is what unites us with Christ and conforms us to His image. It is what paves the road to eternity with God. The couples I know who practice NFP with pure motives are, in my estimation, some of the most admirable folks on the planet for their selflessness and willingness to submit themselves to the will of God. Let us not condemn them for their virtue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For those who have such disdain for the phrase “opennes to life,” let the record show that not only do faithful, NFP-practicing Catholics claim to be open to life – they prove it! What would you call having 3,4,5,6,7, or 8 children? Would you call that selfishness? Hypocritical? Being unopen to life? Hardly.

The spirit of NFP, in its pure form, is clearly and beautifully demonstrated by the fact that these couples are making the self-sacrificing choice of bringing as many souls into the world as their houses can hold.

SpiritMeadow criticized these couples for their willingness to sacrifice and “believes” that NFP causes great marital strain (although how a person can see into the private lives of thousands of strangers remains a mystery to me). Admittedly, sacrifice has reached the status of a four-letter word in secular America. It’s not only unpopular, but it’s seen as an indictment on everyone else’s lifestyle. However, as Catholics, we know that sacrifice is the way of the Cross. It is what unites us with Christ and conforms us to His image. It is what paves the road to eternity with God. The couples I know who practice NFP with pure motives are, in my estimation, some of the most admirable folks on the planet for their selflessness and willingness to submit themselves to the will of God. Let us not condemn them for their virtue.

In a world of shrinking resources, I’m afraid that I cannot accept that it is a good thing to produce families of that number. Do you believe that God favors a world in which people starve because they cannot actually feed their populations? there is a thread on this forum that suggests that it is better to raise 2 hungry kids than one who is well fed and has a good life. They envision God apparently as more interested in being worshiped by greater numbers than in his children being well cared for. I recognize that people disagree, and that’s fine. but I still say that the Church defenders have come up with some fancy footwork to allow for birth control in another form with no decent explanation as to why a “natural”: form is so much more acceptable than a man-made type. It is seldom that two persons are gifted with an equal desire for sexual relations. This having to have sex by the calendar is not helpful it seems to me in marital relations. I don’t speak for any one in particular. But we certainly know that such practices often used to BECOME pregnant, put stress of the relationship, and that is for a short time hopefully. A lifetime of such stuff would be enough for many to just not want to be bothered or, as so many have done in the past, go elsewhere.

 

[surfinpure]

SpiritMeadow,

I will not be sucked into another “shrinking resources” debate. I disagree entirely with the premises. I have said all I need to on this thread. Except,

Happy Fathers Day to all you faithful, loving, self-giving, NFP-practicing Dads. God bless you for your adherence to the truth in the face of the lies and hatred of the world. Great is your reward!!!

In Christ,

mary

 

[lauramelissa]

Here is something I find interesting…

I just did a little research, so if any of my findings regarding NFP are wrong, please feel free to correct me.

This site seems to pretty well explain the processes/different methods of NFP, and gives it an effectiveness rating of between 91%-98% (depending on the form practiced). This is of course, when the method is used properly (or when a couple is actively trying to avoid pregnancy), so realistically, you’re looking at the true statistics being a little less because most people don’t consistently use any form of birth control or family planning correctly. This stat is meant to represent the couple who follows NFP without wavering.

Condoms have a 98% effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, again, assuming they are used right. This doesn’t account for tears, slips, people who don’t always use condoms, or people who don’t know how to put them on correctly.

Birth control seems to vary a bit. This site lists a 99.7% accuracy rate if used perfectly, and 92% for the “typical” use, ie, how the general public uses it. A lot also depends on the brand of birth control being used - a friend of mine used one, which had a 92% “perfect use” rate, and ended up pregnant.

The point I’m trying to make here is that other methods of birth control, like NFP, are known to be imperfect. So if a couple is having sex using a condom, birth control, etc. and they know there is a chance they could get pregnant, despite their desire not to… how is this any different than NFP?