If NFP is really 99% effective

[Link0126]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Me and wife want to learn NFP b/c we want to do the right thing (I’m pushing for it more than her) but she is getting more and more worried b/c her potential future teacher has 6 screaming kids all the time… To be perfectly honest, we can’t afford 1 kid, let alone 6-17.

It probably doesn’t work that well, does it?

Please let me know if it working for you and how long you’ve been using it and how many “unplanned” pregnancies have occured.

Thank you.

 

[Newbie2]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting.… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Me and wife want to learn NFP b/c we want to do the right thing (I’m pushing for it more than her) but she is getting more and more worried b/c her potential future teacher has 6 screaming kids all the time… To be perfectly honest, we can’t afford 1 kid, let alone 6-17.

It probably doesn’t work that well, does it?

Please let me know if it working for you and how long you’ve been using it and how many “unplanned” pregnancies have occured.

Thank you.

“Everyone”?

 

[Link0126]

“Everyone”?

basically.

 

[smichhertz]

Catholics only use NFP for grave reason.

So typically, most Catholics who use NFP will use it sparingly when they need to space pregnancies. This is why you will see them having lots of children.

Remember how many children a couple has is NOT an indication for the success of ANY birth control. It’s how many UNEXPECTED children they have that’s the indicator.

Hope that helps!

 

[Orogeny]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Perhaps they want 6 or 7 kids. And that doesn’t mean that they will have 17 kids.

Peace

Tim

 

[Link0126]

Catholics only use NFP for grave reason.

WHHATT?! we can’t even use NFP?!

Remember how many children a couple has is NOT an indication for the success of ANY birth control. It’s how many UNEXPECTED children they have that’s the indicator.

That’s why I was asking if people would care to share that information specifically.

Also, is it morally wrong to adopt a kid instead of having a kid?

 

[limabeanerson]

WHHATT?! we can’t even use NFP?!

That’s why I was asking if people would care to share that information specifically.

Also, is it morally wrong to adopt a kid instead of having a kid?

Yeah, NFP is only for helping plan your family. It can be used to space out children for serious health or financial reasons but is not supposed to be used just because you don’t feel like having more kids.

I’m not sure if this is correct or not but I believe you could say sanity is a health reason so you want some space between your kids because you don’t want 7 kids under the age of 5. lol

The studies I’ve seen or heard about though show that using NFP correctly will result in 99% effective. Equal or better than any birth control I’ve ever heard of.

In addition to the moral and marital benefits I’ve heard that lots of ladies have found when switching to NFP they “know their bodies” better and can discover and fix issues that were just masked by ABC in the past.

Unfortunately, I (a man) had a vasectomy before I knew that it was sinful so I can’t say any of this from experience.

 

[smichhertz]

WHHATT?! we can’t even use NFP?!

Of course you can, it just has to be a serious reason. The reason you cited, like financial costs, etc would fall under that category.

Also, is it morally wrong to adopt a kid instead of having a kid?

There’s nothing wrong with adopting a kid, but you cannot do it “instead of” having your own. Your marriage should still be open to life.

 

[Link0126]

Unfortunately, I (a man) had a vasectomy before I knew that it was sinful so I can’t say any of this from experience.

Lucky, b/c you didn’t know AND now you don’t have to worry about sinning over and over. One time venerial sin seems better than potential constant mortal sins, no?

Also, there is reason to believe my wife may not be able to have a child. But she said even if we can have our own kids, that she would still like to adopt a child who is need of a good home. Obviously, since resources are always limited, adopting a kid would ultimately count against having another kid of our own… would this be wrong, even if we had 1 or 2 of our own kids. The reason for adoption like I said would be to help a child in need…

Thank you.

 

[Fidelia]

It is probably more common for NFP parents to have more children NOT because NFP is ineffective, but because NFP users have a different mindset about children all together. Instead of buying into our secular culture’s views of children being burdens, we view children as gifts from God, that can allow a husband and wife to grow in the holiness of their marriage.

NFP is for planning and spacing children, not for forbidding them altogether. The Church does teach that parents should have the amount of children that they can support, spiritually, emotionally, and financially. If you can’t afford to have a child right away, it’s ok to put it off, as long as you are open to children by using NFP. Adopting children is a very great thing to do, but you cannot refuse to have your own.

ETA: While NFP is very effective, it is difficult to guage how liberal or conservative different couples are. Some will abstain more strictly than others, depending on their situations. I have heard on this forum of couples who abstain strictly because a pregnancy would be life-threatening for the wife, they educate themselves well about NFP, use it well, and it works for them.

 

[Fidelia]

Also, there is reason to believe my wife may not be able to have a child. But she said even if we can have our own kids, that she would still like to adopt a child who is need of a good home. Obviously, since resources are always limited, adopting a kid would ultimately count against having another kid of our own… would this be wrong, even if we had 1 or 2 of our own kids. The reason for adoption like I said would be to help a child in need…

Thank you.

I think that a scenario like that would be permissible, since it would make having another baby financially very difficult. For instance, you have a baby (or two), then feel called to adopt one, you have the opportunity and do so, and there are costs involved now, both of adopting and having one more child. You could postpone having another if need be. What you cannot do is to fully intend never to conceive.
I admire the two of you for thinking about adoption. It takes special and good to do that. I know someone whose parents adopted a young child after having already had 4 of their own.

 

[Link0126]

I have heard on this forum of couples who abstain strictly because a pregnancy would be life-threatening for the wife, they educate themselves well about NFP, use it well, and it works for them.

Risk the wife’s life instead of waste one single sperm… that is some **hardcore **Catholicism… I’d do it, but I don’t think my wife would…

Ok, let’s say my wife goes to the classes but doesn’t want to use NFP. Am I still at fault for using a contraceptive method or does my sin go on to her b/c of what she has made me do…

 

[WorkerPriest]

I must say at the outset, that natural family planning seems to me the best of alternatives.

However…

My Lutheran mind has to ask, what’s so different theologically from using one intentional method of having sexual relations without the possiblity of children, versus using another intentional method to accomplish the same ends? Assuming that birth control is not abortive in nature (a grave and mortal sin, indeed) what’s the real difference between it and NFP? Both are seeking to have sexual relations without producing children, in effect, preventing conception.

Sure seems to me like the same thing.

 

[Windfish]

Well, I do not know about everyone. I know of at least one couple who uses NFP, and they only have three kids. They have been married for nearly 8 or 9 years.

 

[Fidelia]

Risk the wife’s life instead of waste one single sperm… that is some **hardcore **Catholicism… I’d do it, but I don’t think my wife would…

Ok, let’s say my wife goes to the classes but doesn’t want to use NFP. Am I still at fault for using a contraceptive method or does my sin go on to her b/c of what she has made me do…

It’s not about risking the wife’s life, it’s about being open to life and trusting God. And if you only have sex when you know you can’t conceive, you won’t conceive. You just might abstain more than the average couple.

If your wife doesn’t want to use NFP, you cannot use artificial contraception. If she insists on using it herself, I think you are might not be culpable, but someone else would need to confirm that.

I would highly recommend learning more about theology of the body and how it plays into the theology of the sacrament of marriage. If all you’re looking at is not being allowed to use artificial contraception, you’re not really seeing the whole entire picture. (And it really is a beautiful picture to fully see!)

You might try reading one of Christopher West’s books. He writes about John Paul II’s Theology of the Body teachings. I have read Theology of the Body for Beginners and The Good News About Sex and Marriage myself, and found them helpful.

 

[Link0126]

I must say at the outset, that natural family planning seems to me the best of alternatives.

However…

My Lutheran mind has to ask, what’s so different theologically from using one intentional method of having sexual relations without the possiblity of children, versus using another intentional method to accomplish the same ends? Assuming that birth control is not abortive in nature (a grave and mortal sin, indeed) what’s the real difference between it and NFP? Both are seeking to have sexual relations without producing children, in effect, preventing conception.

Sure seems to me like the same thing.

I have thought the same thing before. It actually seems worse though, b/c it takes more effort and planning. It’s almost like a condom is comparable 3rd degree murder and NFP would be 1st. b/c of the the foreknowledge and planning necessary.

 

[ignatius777]

why does everyone who practices it have like 6 or 7 children, and counting… with still like 10 years left of fertility. Which means they are likely to have like 17 kids before it’s all said and done…

Me and wife want to learn NFP b/c we want to do the right thing (I’m pushing for it more than her) but she is getting more and more worried b/c her potential future teacher has 6 screaming kids all the time… To be perfectly honest, we can’t afford 1 kid, let alone 6-17.

It probably doesn’t work that well, does it?

Please let me know if it working for you and how long you’ve been using it and how many “unplanned” pregnancies have occured.

Thank you.

My wife and I have never used anything but NFP and we have 3 children all planned and all when we planned them. My oldest is 21 and we have been married 24 yrs so we have used it for 24 yrs

 

[ignatius777]

Of course you can, it just has to be a serious reason. The reason you cited, like financial costs, etc would fall under that category.

There’s nothing wrong with adopting a kid, but you cannot do it “instead of” having your own. Your marriage should still be open to life.

Open to life is the optimal phrase. Evrey act of intercourse must be open to life as it is when indiviudals use NFP

 

[Link0126]

My wife and I have never used anything but NFP and we have 3 children all planned and all when we planned them. My oldest is 21 and we have been married 24 yrs so we have used it for 24 yrs

Thank you. That is good to know and very helpful.

 

[Fidelia]

I must say at the outset, that natural family planning seems to me the best of alternatives.

However…

My Lutheran mind has to ask, what’s so different theologically from using one intentional method of having sexual relations without the possiblity of children, versus using another intentional method to accomplish the same ends? Assuming that birth control is not abortive in nature (a grave and mortal sin, indeed) what’s the real difference between it and NFP? Both are seeking to have sexual relations without producing children, in effect, preventing conception.

Sure seems to me like the same thing.

NFP preserves the divine purpose of the marital act- to be unitive and procreative. Procreative doesn’t mean that a child must always result; it means that a child must not be directly prevented in the act.

See also my previous post about Theology of the Body and the sacrament of marriage.