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

[LittleDeb]

NFP used the right way CLOSES a sexual act to the creation of life. At least that is what promotes…Natural Family Planning…If a couple wants to open themselves up to procreation, they have to abandon the usage of NFP for that period.

You are kind of understanding here but not quite. You have just expressed the terms, NFP and periodic continence as if they were interchangeable. They aren’t. Periodic continence (as expressed in scripture) can be an element in NFP. However, pregnancy and ecological breast-feeding are also elements of NFP. A lot of people get those terms confused. The term “NFP” is just another in a long line of “so-called” terms. NFP doesn’t close anything. It is simply acting on information. Pregnancy is a time that is closed to creating a new life. Ya can’t put another bun in when the first is a-bakin’! God, in His design, closed that time to reproduction. The infertile phase is His design. Sex during pregnancy, or any other infertile phase, can’t be reproductive, it is still, however, procreative.

Another term I am seeing misunderstood in this thread (though not by you) is the concept of charting. Charting our fertility is a good thing! It can be done without serious reason at all. It is akin to reading the labels on food packages or having our blood pressure checked. Lacking knowledge of our reproductive systems in general, and specifically our own personal fertility, is not a virtue. Blessed Mother Teresa found that teaching charting was a wonderful form of education for the poor in India.

I agree with you that the abuse of NFP can be a problem. That has not been my experience with most couples I know. Although my intention isn’t to negate your experience. We obviously know different people. When I find couples who use it selfishly I try NOT to bring up NFP. Since the means of NFP is neutral I don’t want to turn them off of it. Where the focus need be is in addressing the selfish behavior, not the use of NFP in achieving the result they think they want.

Further, I fully agree with you that there IS such thing as a contraceptive mentality. In our talks promoting NFP we address that contraception is a mental mindset first. When I address those few couples who want to use NFP like contraception I try to keep a positive attitude. Since their means are neutral, I am only trying to help them overcome an intent that is wrong. When speaking with my non-Catholic friends about contraception and what it does to marriage, I have to overcome** both** the means and intent. It is like fighting a battle on 2 fronts and I get spread too thin sometimes.

What we really need to get united on is overcoming the Culture of Death. Our late Holy Father really knew what was going on when he coined that term.

 

[LittleDeb]

Well, I am just going to have to say it. I didn’t want to but since there is such an influx of misinformation I have to do it. Please note that this is the first time ever in my nearly 4 years on CAF that I have ever done this:

For those who continue to proclaim that NFP is contraception, you have placed yourself outside of the Magisterial teachings of the Church. Since contraception is an area of faith and morals, the Church is inerrant on it. The Church has proclaimed that NFP is not contraception.

[sign]Rome has spoken. The case is closed![/sign]
Wow. Do you ever have those moments when you swear that your parent’s words will never fly out of your mouth…up an until they actually do? This moment is sort of like that for me. I would have never guessed in my 37 years as a Catholic that I would ever find the need to throw out the Magisterium card. This subject is my passion. Can you tell?

 

[Flopfoot]

An act can be wrong either if the intent is wrong or because the means are wrong.

There are some cases where it’s okay for a couple to not want to have a child, and there are other cases where it’s not okay. (This is Church teaching, simplified of course).

The reason why the Church condemns artificial birth control is NOT because of the intent, it is because of the means.

Even if it was okay for a couple to not want another child (they’ve already got all they can financially support, for example), it still wouldn’t be okay for them to use condoms / pills / whatever. These are immoral means. They are messing with a sacred act.

However, it would be fine for them to use NFP in that situation. You’re not messing with the sacred act when you use NFP - you’re just having normal sex. The only thing you’re doing different is choosing what day to have normal sex. How could that be a bad means?

NFP can be wrong but only in the case where it is not right for a couple to not want any more children. Artificial birth control is always wrong.

 

[Newbie2]

Having children is not its only purpose but it is its grandest purpose. To go against its purpose is immoral.

That would leave two options when a married couple has “enough” kids:

1. Keep having more, even though they cannot afford to feed them.
2. Refrain completely and permanently from sexual relations, until the woman reaches the age of menopause.

Neither of which is a position of the Church. BTW, the Church doesn’t specify how many kids one should have; hence NFP solves a lot of problems.

Not seeing anything in your quote that says that children are the only or the greatest purpose of marriage, just that it is a purpose of marriage.

I refer back to my quotes form the Catholicism of the Catholic Church.

Now you need to remember, NFP to avoid pregnancy is not to be used selfishly this means you have to have just cause. You can’t get married and decide you don’t want kids because you would rather have a boat, that is sinful. Just reasons to avoid pregnancy would be stuff along the lines of proper spacing of children, serious health reasons, or lack of monetary or emotional ability to take care of the children you already have. There are more reasons but that gives you an idea.

 

[LJN21]

This analogy is faulty (and happens to be extremely common by nfp supporters on this board). By observing your fertility signs and postponing sex until the infertile period, this in essence is also uninviting God since the couple knows it is **biologically impossible to conceive. **

The scientific knowledge has become so sophisticated since our mothers’ and grandmothers’ times that a woman can be absolutely certain the marital act will not result in pregnancy and she can be safe. I would argue that you are only inviting God if you have no clue as to where you are in your cycle.

Go to the Family Life section. There are threads frequently about what couples should do about birth control if another pregnancy will do serious medical harm to the woman and their doc is recommending sterilization. What do people suggest? Use nfp to avoid pregnancy; it is so reliable and more so than artificial contraception!

Know the phrase "have your cake and eat it, too? This describes many nfp users who use biological markers to determine periods of natural infertility to prevent pregnancy, yet still say they are “open to life” or “inviting God.” You can’t have it both ways.

Please don’t get me wrong. I have used nfp exclusively and enthusiastically, but I never claimed that I was open to the possibility of conception when I knew it wasn’t going to happen or still sending God an invitation, etc.

Nfp is simply a contraceptive birth control method that respects the natural cyclical progression of a woman’s reproductive system more so than other methods. Of course, you can integrate spirituality into the method, but let’s call a spade a spade and stop denying that it is something that it is not.

I stand by the analogy because NFP is not contraception. It can be used to control births when there is serious reason to do so but it does nothing to counter act conception. Oddly enough I think the only reason this comes up so often is cause it IS so effective. Even if NFP work only 50% of the time it would be the only recourse besides total abstinence. Instead of giving us something that kind sort of works to so we don’t forget His part in the procreative process, Gods even us something thats method failure rate is better than the Pill!

 

[Joya]

An act can be wrong either if the intent is wrong or because the means are wrong.

There are some cases where it’s okay for a couple to not want to have a child, and there are other cases where it’s not okay. (This is Church teaching, simplified of course).

The reason why the Church condemns artificial birth control is NOT because of the intent, it is because of the means.

Even if it was okay for a couple to not want another child (they’ve already got all they can financially support, for example), it still wouldn’t be okay for them to use condoms / pills / whatever. These are immoral means. They are messing with a sacred act.

However, it would be fine for them to use NFP in that situation. You’re not messing with the sacred act when you use NFP - you’re just having normal sex. The only thing you’re doing different is choosing what day to have normal sex. How could that be a bad means?

NFP can be wrong but only in the case where it is not right for a couple to not want any more children. Artificial birth control is always wrong.

I think this is a very good explanation of the teaching for the layperson to understand. Thank you.

However, I do have to question whether the entire human race should be morally limited to a singe method of family planning. I maintain that nfp is a more respectful method than most abc methods, but it is not possible nor practical for everyone to follow it for their entire reproductive lives. This is where the formed conscience comes in and I do think (as many priests and theologians themselves think) that one can use abc in good conscience (not abortifacients, of course).

 

[LJN21]

I think this is a very good explanation of the teaching for the layperson to understand. Thank you.

However, I do have to question whether the entire human race should be morally limited to a singe method of family planning. I maintain that nfp is a more respectful method than most abc methods, but it is not possible nor practical for everyone to follow it for their entire reproductive lives. This is where the formed conscience comes in and I do think (as many priests and theologians themselves think) that one can use abc in good conscience (not abortifacients, of course).

Actually this is one of the areas that consciousness descent will not help you. The Church has always taught that artificial methods of of birth control was intrinsic evil. Based on the fact this has been the constant, even biblical teaching, it is infallible based on tradition.

Pope Pius XI says this:
Casti Connubii:

No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death…the Catholic Church… .through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Ibid:

Furthermore Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

 

[LJN21]

dioceseoflincoln.com/purple/birth/index.htm#2

A candidate in an RCIA program in another diocese was told by a priest that he could dissent from Church teaching about contraception if he could not accept it in conscience. Is this correct?

This is not correct. Conscience, in order to be followed without sin, must be correctly formed and must conform to objective norms of morality, among which are divine laws. Artificial birth prevention is forbidden by God. A conscience that is not in agreement with God on this issue is erroneous and cannot be followed licitly. Sometimes priests are misquoted or misunderstood and perhaps that is the case here.

 

[Janet_S]

I think this is a very good explanation of the teaching for the layperson to understand. Thank you.

However, I do have to question whether the entire human race should be morally limited to a singe method of family planning. I maintain that nfp is a more respectful method than most abc methods, but it is not possible nor practical for everyone to follow it for their entire reproductive lives. This is where the formed conscience comes in and I do think (as many priests and theologians themselves think) that one can use abc in good conscience (not abortifacients, of course).

One can use ABC, but it is still considered intrinsically evil and is still a sin. The Magisterial teaching is absolutely clear about this. The Church’s teaching against ABC has been clarified and defined by our recent Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. All Catholics are aware of this. This is from the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (GS)

Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law–GS 51

Like it or not, the only method that has been found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church is period abstinence or NFP.

It’s unfortunate, but I’m sure you can find priests and theologians to go a long with a decision to have an abortion too, but that never makes it objectively right nor does it ever eliminate a person’s culpability for the sin they commit just because they found a priest or theologian who agrees with them.

I’m sure you will find many more priests and theologians who will uphold the Magisterial teaching. But in the end it doesn’t matter. We don’t determine morality by a democratic vote.

 

[Janet_S]

Like it or not, the only method that has not been found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church is period abstinence or NFP.

Sorry, there’s an error in my previous post. Insert the word not.

 

[Carjack1]

With all due respect NFP put a strain on my marriage. I wanted to become Catholic, but this NFP stuff wouldn’t work for me. It has cause me mental anguish and I am glad that I do not practice it.

 

[newbetx]

With all due respect NFP put a strain on my marriage. I wanted to become Catholic, but this NFP stuff wouldn’t work for me. It has cause me mental anguish and I am glad that I do not practice it.

I’m sorry about your experience with NFP. I can assure you that you are not alone. I too, suffered. Problem was when we turned to ABC our marriage ended up suffering worse over the long haul. It might not for you, but then is that all that maters?

If you have not read The Good News About Sex and Marriage, I strongly urge you to do so. It explained many things to me. It wasn’t enough, though. There are other books to read that helped me understand myself. But it is a good start.

 

[LJN21]

With all due respect NFP put a strain on my marriage. I wanted to become Catholic, but this NFP stuff wouldn’t work for me. It has cause me mental anguish and I am glad that I do not practice it.

You don’t have to. However, ABC is always sinful.

I do recommend you look at exactly why its causes you mental anguish. For my husband and I it definitely caused some heart ache when we started attempting it. It was VERY hard but not because of NFP it was because there were underlying marriage issues that had never been addressed.

 

[Carjack1]

You don’t have to. However, ABC is always sinful.

I do recommend you look at exactly why its causes you mental anguish. For my husband and I it definitely caused some heart ache when we started attempting it. It was VERY hard but not because of NFP it was because there were underlying marriage issues that had never been addressed.

That is why I am not Catholic. My “relations” with my husband should not be sinful, yet it is according to Catholics. So if one doesn’t practice NFP, their other choice is to abstain? Those choices are not liberating at all.

 

[Newbie2]

That is why I am not Catholic. My “relations” with my husband should not be sinful, yet it is according to Catholics. So if one doesn’t practice NFP, their other choice is to abstain? Those choices are not liberating at all.

Maybe not. Is sex from a theological perspective supposed to be “liberating”?

 

[LJN21]

That is why I am not Catholic. My “relations” with my husband should not be sinful, yet it is according to Catholics. So if one doesn’t practice NFP, their other choice is to abstain? Those choices are not liberating at all.

Having relations with ones spouse is not sinful, it is in fact quite the opposite, it is a sacramental! Is the act of renewing your wedding vows, its saying “I do” again and giving your self wholly and completely to each other. That is one of the reasons use of ABC is so wrong. Your saying I’m going to give my self to you except for this part, I’m keeping it for my self.

 

[Carjack1]

Maybe not. Is sex from a theological perspective supposed to be “liberating”?

It should be with one’s spouse.

 

[Carjack1]

Having relations with ones spouse is not sinful, it is in fact quite the opposite, it is a sacramental! Is the act of renewing your wedding vows, its saying “I do” again and giving your self wholly and completely to each other. That is one of the reasons use of ABC is so wrong. Your saying I’m going to give my self to you except for this part, I’m keeping it for my self.

when engaging in relations. The husband and wife are already saying I give myself to you.

 

[Newbie2]

It should be with one’s spouse.

Agreed, but from a theological perspective, how is it “liberating” per your previous assertion.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m sorry about your experience with NFP. I can assure you that you are not alone. I too, suffered. Problem was when we turned to ABC our marriage ended up suffering worse over the long haul. It might not for you, but then is that all that maters?

If you have not read The Good News About Sex and Marriage, I strongly urge you to do so. It explained many things to me. It wasn’t enough, though. There are other books to read that helped me understand myself. But it is a good start.

This is a good start too to help understand Catholic teaching:

Janet Smith’s “Contraception, Why Not?” Available in an article and MP3

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/03/05/contraception-why-not-janet-smith-mp3s-audio/