P
prodigalson2011
Guest
According to all the studies done on NFP, the answer would seem to be a resounding yes. Have you just been playing devil’s advocate, Robert? You … uh … devil, you.
- Status
E
Elizium23
Guest
It does, and I think that if the reality was something different then God would not have burdened us by ordering the human sexuality in such a way as He chose to do. The Church has revealed to us perfectly what God’s will for us is. He commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply.” He ordained marriage between a man and a woman as a holy vocation to build the family in a reflection of the love of the Holy Trinity. He gave men and women our sexual identity and complementarity that fit perfectly together for exactly two means: procreation and unity. Used properly, NFP allows mankind to cooperate in control of the means of procreation of children, but it is more than that. It can bring a man and woman together in love as they learn about each other’s bodies and practice chastity in respect of the Divine Law. It takes zero thought or respect to slap on a condom three minutes before penetration. They can teach that all they want in the public schools but it will never engender love and respect for each other. “Health care” should never involve “correction” of fecundity because it is not a disease to be treated.
Those who live in the Culture of Death don’t understand anything I just said, and they will commit cultural suicide as their races die out in a final whimper of abortion and contraception and homosexuality. I will not miss them much.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
This study–
–found that the symptoms-based method of NFP was 99.86% effective. And this one –
– pulled up a similar rate of 99.6%.
R
Robertanthony
Guest
English is not my first language so I had to look up NFP to see just what it entails. It is defined as an umbrella term (i.e. includes different natural methods). Is the method called “symptoms-based fertility awareness” the one that solely comes to people’s minds on here when they read NFP or do people take NFP to mean different methods of natural family planning? The symptoms-based one is highly effective according to the wikipedia article. Given its high efficiency rate, it could be argued that it can be used with an end in mind that is similar to other methods not approved by the Church( but that’s a topic for another thread).
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
English isn’t your first language? Well, you could have fooled me. You speak it (or write it, at least) better than many Americans.
I can’t say for certain, but I get the impression that most people, when they hear the term “natural family planning”, think of the rhythm method, which is dependent upon a regular cycle and is much less efficient. I have several Protestant (contracepting) friends who were or are under this misconception.
And you are correct; it can indeed be used with a “contraceptive mentality”, in which case it becomes just as sinful as artificial birth control. There must be morally sufficient reasons for a couple to wish to delay childbirth in order for them to licitly practice NFP.
R
Regina_Love
Guest
start a survey here!
W
WildCatholic
Guest
To be honest, I think the number is high, but you have to remember
- Most “Catholics” in these polls see the Church maybe 3 or 4 times a year.
- Even among church going Catholics, there is probably a significant percentage who take it for health issues, and may have been told its okay.Now in most cases these are just doctors who don’t know any better, but there are genuine cases of woman who need the pill for regulating periods or girls who took it to prevent acne (which was a can of worms. A lot of girls in my Catholic high school used this excuse. Of course only one of our priests suspected otherwise that these girls were full of it.
- It depends what the polls ask. If it ask “have used birth control” then yes the number might be extremely high. But it doesn’t mean they are using it now. Its like the statistic that says 99% of men masturbate. It doesn’t mean all men do it all the time. Anyway back to the pill debate. Some women may have given it up years ago due to ill health effects or who knows what so certainly it might be that 90% have used it at some point. To be honest I think the number of practicing Catholics who use it regularly is probably at 50%, at least in my area.
A
aball1035
Guest
I see that most people say that contraception is pretty common in most parishes. But why then are no (or extremely few) priests talking about it, and condemning its use from the pulpit?
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
Probably for similar reason(s) to the few that point out the great disconnect these days between most of those who regularly receive the Blessed Sacrament with little or no regard to the need for formal Confession, especially regarding mortal sin.
Gone [with a few exeptions of course] are the queues of faithful awaiting their turn to be heard in the confessional.
P
Personanongrata
Guest
I was just thinking the same thing. If NFP was so great and so easy, why don’t more women know about it? Most women don’t have the kind of lives where they can “wake up and take their temp.” NFP is not talked about in Church. (shhhhhh) And if you have an irregular cycle, good luck to you.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
I tend to agree, but that’s due to the large number of non-practicing Catholics, cafeteria Catholics, and the simple fact that many practicing are simply clueless as to the Church’s position on the matter. You’ll definitely find that more Catholics attending Church on a regular basis don’t use contraceptives.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
99% effectiveness means that if you have sex 100x a year, you’re having a child.
The high effectiveness levels appear to be based on ideal circumstances, and the rest of the data is thrown out. That’s very problematic if one is to compare it to other methods. You can’t take the effectiveness of one method based on ideal circumstances and throw out the rest of the data, then compare it to another method where all data is included. If apples were compared to apples…using the contraception during the infertile period…there is no question that ABCs are more effective.
It’s all irrelevant anyway. ABC are not considered morally licit by the Church, and the Church does not consider their effectiveness in determining their morality.
R
rmbrulotte
Guest
You are correct, there is a bias that it does not work and that when it does it only works for women with very regular cycles (who are few and far between). But I think there are many reasons. Many Catholics believe that they have the right to form their own consciences on this, despite what the Church teaches about contraception. (I don’t know where this comes from exactly, this is just what I have heard from them) Many have been told this by priests. I also think that many do not use it because it is very hard, and requires abstinence, which goes very much against our culture.
I don’t think that NFP is a best kept secret at all
All the information is out there if you want to look for it. Despite what many NFP lovers say, it is very hard and it isn’t always easy on your marriage. My husband and I have used it our entire marriage (12 yrs) so I do have practical experience with this reality (and as an aside, I hate it when the NFP lovers try to convince newly married or converted people that NFP is so wonderful and blah blah blah. It is hard and frustrating and you abstain a lot. That is the reality) It does require more communication and understanding, and lots of prayer, which helps the marriage. On the other hand, for example, if you struggle with long irregular cycles, you abstain more than average. Then let’s say during the available time, a spouse gets sick. Then by the next available time the other spouse gets sick or one has to work late or there is a lot going on and there is realistically no time for sex. In instances like those, it can be very frustrating, lead to stress in the marriage, and people decide that NFP is ruining their marriage so they decide contraception is the lesser evil. I have definitely been faced with that temptation many times.
M
maryjk
Guest
Because it requires self control. And most people aren’t big on self control.
E
Elizium23
Guest
So I read cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/Contraception.htm and I have some concerns. The ABC in this chart is measured differently than we have been talking about NFP. The “percentage” claim we have for NFP is represented instead by “number of pregnancies per 100 women in a year”. I am not good at math or statistics, but isn’t that different from “number of pregnancies if you have sex 100 times per year”? So if NFP is truly 99% effective, then only 1 woman out of 100 will be pregnant in a given year of use.
And why would you want to use ABC that seems to be so much less effective than NFP?
And why would you want to use ABC that seems to be so much less effective than NFP?
M
maryjk
Guest
Yes, it is a different number. Because the way some people have been talking about NFP is wrong.
Both are compared the same way. No method is compared using “number of pregnancies if you have sex 100 times.”
J
jamie86
Guest
The reason is simple. With ABC you can do it whenever you want. With NFP there are days you cannot have sex. People don’t like the “no sex” thing.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I think a survey on a forum such as this would produce some very biased results. A Catholic forum is most likely going to be frequented by more orthodox Catholics.
N
nodito
Guest
No, this is incorrect. 99% method efficacy means that for every 100 couples using a particular method correctly, one of them will become pregnant within a year. It doesn’t take into account how many times they have intercourse that year, so the statistics include couples who have sex every night and couples who have sex only a couple of times a month.
H
HappyCatholic01
Guest
You’re right - trusting in the Lord to not give us more than we can handle is a silly notion.
I’ll email the Vatican post haste…
In the end, we are called to obey, whether or not we endorse or believe the teaching. Rationalizing disobedience has never been taught as acceptable for Christ.
As the Warrior Monk said, whether or not we find it convenient or ideal (I love NFP, personally) is irrelevant. Morality is not determined by random people’s opinions or frustrations, or simple laziness in many cases.
- Status