Is NFP more of a cross than a blessing to you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Convert_in_99
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
More from that blog post:

"I saw the old regime’s ecological breastfeeding advocacy as problematic for the following reasons:
  1. For many couples, fertility returns far sooner than couples would like, even while using ecological breastfeeding. When this happens, they are left distrusting many of the other things they learned in NFP classes.
  2. Physicians, lactation consultants, and mainstream medical journals have not adopted the term “ecological breastfeeding.” This creates a disconnect between CCL and the medical community. Again, this leaves couples feeling misled about what they have learned in their NFP courses.
  3. Ecological breastfeeding is REALLY difficult, and in many cases it isn’t possible to practice this method of breastfeeding—particularly in the very common situation where mom has to work part time.
  4. Ecological breastfeeding is more of a parenting style/philosophy and CCL should focus on teaching NFP and promoting breastfeeding, and avoid entering into the parenting philosophy debates."
“More importantly, CCL has moved away from prescribing breastfeeding in order to delay the return of fertility, and they will no longer refer to breastfeeding as a “form of NFP.” Rather, CCL promotes breastfeeding as part of responsible parenthood, a method of feeding that is unquestionably best for babies, and usually always best for mothers and families. While wholeheartedly promoting that “breast is best,” CCL no longer claims that a particular kind of breastfeeding is best for a particular family, and they no longer imply that an early return of fertility is the result of a mother not breastfeeding correctly. Alleluia!”

patheos.com/blogs/buildingcathedrals/2008/05/whats-going-on-at-ccl/
 
Xantippe said:
Based on observation, I don’t think that dissent is what gets topics closed.

What gets topics closed is rudeness, inflammatory personal remarks, and obvious trolling.

So far, we’re all being pretty civil.
Click to expand...
The Topic “Do you hate atheists” has been closed & the posts weren’t rude…:confused::confused::confused:
 
There is something seriously wrong with the Church’s teaching…judging by all the frustration & fear I’m reading about on this Topic! :eek:
 
truetofaith said:
There is something seriously wrong with the Church’s teaching…judging by all the frustration & fear I’m reading about on this Topic! :eek:
Click to expand...
The old teaching was better, not complex. The advent of reasonably effective NFP really clouds things up.
 
whm said:
That is the problem right there. NFP as marketed as moral birth control. In reality NFP can never fail, because conception is always a possibility. From a biological standpoint, a pregnancy is a successful sex act. The thought process to have sex when you (really, really) don’t want a pregnancy is flawed in my opinion. “I can’t believe it we had sex… and we got pregnant!!” It actually is kind of insane when you think about it.

My question is why do we need to have sex when we don’t want a baby (not being sarcastic, trying to be introspective)? To avoid sin, that makes sense, but hopefully we grow out of that need. What are the other reasons? To give to each other? that only makes sense to me if you are open to children. If a pregnancy would be really really bad, how is having sex giving? Same with bonding? If a pregnancy would be bad, how is attempting to create a child and hoping it doesn’t happen a bonding experience?
Click to expand...
I can’t believe I’m reading this.

Because I actually want to have sexual relations with my husband without destroying our marriage by going 15 plus years without intimacy.

Because intimacy is a healthy part of every single marriage and we aren’t called to abstain completely if we can’t procreate.

Because the Church doesn’t teach this concept…otherwise we wouldn’t be able to use NFP either.

We’d only be allowed to be intimate with our spouses if we could accept a baby.

I don’t want to be pregnant again and I don’t want another baby. The Church hasn’t said I have to completely stop intimacy because of it.

You know what?
Hubby and I wanted to wait to have another baby…for awhile…like several years.

I’m a full time student, he is unemployed and we had two kids under the age of 3. My pregnancies are really rough.

We got pregnant again due to so-called “lazy charting” (ridiculous in my opinion) and I didn’t have an abortion and I’m not throwing in the towel and using ABC or getting my tubes tied.

I want to…but I won’t out of obedience to the Church.

We still accepted this baby and I’ll do it again if I have to. I won’t love it but I will.

That doesn’t mean I’m going to cut off all intimate acts or give up charting and keep getting pregnant over and over until I’m 50.
 
truetofaith said:
There is something seriously wrong with the Church’s teaching…judging by all the frustration & fear I’m reading about on this Topic! :eek:
Click to expand...
Just because a teaching can be frustrating and there can be fear surrounding it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.

The Church also teaches that abortion is wrong, even if a parent can’t see how they’ll be able to provide for another child, or perhaps for a profoundly disabled child. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to abort the child; it means that not everything in this life is easy, quite a lot of it is very hard, and that there’s a reason Christ told us to “take up your cross and follow Me” rather than “y’all go party now, y’hear?” 😉
 
Kelfa28 said:
I can’t believe I’m reading this.

Because I actually want to have sexual relations with my husband without destroying our marriage by going 15 plus years without intimacy.

Because intimacy is a healthy part of every single marriage and we aren’t called to abstain completely if we can’t procreate.

Because the Church doesn’t teach this concept…otherwise we wouldn’t be able to use NFP either.

We’d only be allowed to be intimate with our spouses if we could accept a baby.

I don’t want to be pregnant again and I don’t want another baby. The Church hasn’t said I have to completely stop intimacy because of it.

You know what?
Hubby and I wanted to wait to have another baby…for awhile…like several years.

I’m a full time student, he is unemployed and we had two kids under the age of 3. My pregnancies are really rough.

We got pregnant again due to so-called “lazy charting” (ridiculous in my opinion) and I didn’t have an abortion and I’m not throwing in the towel and using ABC or getting my tubes tied.

I want to…but I won’t out of obedience to the Church.

We still accepted this baby and I’ll do it again if I have to. I won’t love it but I will.

That doesn’t mean I’m going to cut off all intimate acts or give up charting and keep getting pregnant over and over until I’m 50.
Click to expand...
Can’t really respond to this because you are not actually responding to what I said. I was asking questions not dictating.
 
whm said:
The old teaching was better, not complex. The advent of reasonably effective NFP really clouds things up.
Click to expand...
But at the same time makes life less hard and dangerous.

In the good old days, if a woman had a life-threatening health condition where pregnancy could kill her (and there are actually more than a few of those), the choices were:
  1. sin
and
  1. total abstinence.
Currently, her choices are:
  1. sin
  2. total abstinence
and
  1. NFP (with some risk of pregnancy)
I have to say that I think that is an improvement, especially since one can tweak NFP to be more effective, depending on one’s level of need.
 
Xantippe said:
But at the same time makes life less hard and dangerous.

In the good old days, if a woman **had a life-threatening health condition where pregnancy could kill her **(and there are actually more than a few of those), the choices were:
  1. sin
and
  1. total abstinence.
Currently, her choices are:
  1. sin
  2. total abstinence
and
  1. NFP (with some risk of pregnancy)
I have to say that I think that is an improvement, especially since one can tweak NFP to be more effective, depending on one’s level of need.
Click to expand...
If the bolded is the case, there is only one choice, abstain. I would never put my wife’s life in this kind of danger.
 
truetofaith said:
Is that what God wants ?..separate bedrooms :eek:
Click to expand...
Maybe not. Maybe if there are seperate bedrooms either one party is selfish and unable to use self control or there is disagreement on reasons to avoid. With my wife and I, it was the latter. There is a permanent dent in my couch from those nights. I am glad NFP is not a part of our lives right now.
 
Kelfa28 said:
I go for 3 mile runs, I avoid cuddling with him, I’ve gone so far as to sleep in the spare bedroom just to avoid the temptation to do anything intimate with him.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I cannot tell you that what you are doing is wrong. I completely understand and my wife and I went through a period like this. Our marriage suffered.
Now, we have fixed this problem with the help of prayer and trust. Both with each other and with God.
 
truetofaith said:
There is something seriously wrong with the Church’s teaching…judging by all the frustration & fear I’m reading about on this Topic! :eek:
Click to expand...
Ha! Yes, whenever a public struggles with the Church teaching, it is usually the Church that is wrong, not fallen mankind…:rolleyes:

I suppose the Church is wrong on everything of which there is frustration…
 
truetofaith said:
I’m sure the Church gives a dispensation for special circumstances, such as yours. Ask your Pastor or Bishop.
Click to expand...
The Church does not require couples to get a dispensation in order to use NFP to limit their family size. All that is required is that couples discern and ensure that their reasons are not selfish. Other than that, it’s up to the couple to decide whether their reasons to avoid are “serious” enough. No need to get permission from the Church. (which is not to say that a couple couldn’t consult a priest for guidance, but that is not required)
Xantippe said:
In the interests of completeness, I should mention that my experience with CCL’s materials were from around 1998-2005ish (???). During those years, they were deep into ecological breastfeeding and attachment parenting.

There’s reason to think that CCL’s focus and philosophy has changed a lot over the past 10 years, so those observations may no longer be fair at this point.

Here’s something I found (but this is also somewhat old, as it’s from 2008):

“CCL is now promoting a more high tech, streamlined, and scientific approach to NFP. They have also adopted an altered approach to breastfeeding and child spacing and for that I give them two thumbs up! The new materials are really great, and the new student guide is a must have, with simpler rules, great computer graphics, and even a new software program (Cycle-Pro) to help chart your cycles.
Overall, I think the changes at CCL are GREAT, but I think the changes related to breastfeeding are SUPER GREAT! And here is why:
Two years ago my husband and I signed up to become NFP instructors for our diocese. We were required to receive training through CCL (this is typical of most diocesan offices), and we filled out the forms to enroll in the CCL teaching training program. This was prior to the new CCL materials and, in our application form, we were required to explain why we didn’t ecologically breastfeed our children. It was at this point that I realized just how intertwined CCL and the promoters of Attachment Parenting/ecological breastfeeding had become.”

“Now, I exclusively breastfeed my children, but I do not sleep with my babies, nor do I avoid pacifiers, etc. Under the old CCL regime, as NFP instructors, we would be expected to not only teach NFP, but to promote a particular style of parenting and child spacing: ecological breastfeeding/AP. At the time, we couldn’t sign the form saying we had personally practiced this type of parenting, nor would I sign anything agreeing to parent this way in the future. I explained my reasons fully in an attached essay, and we were granted an “exemption” so to speak, and because CCL was soon changing this part of the materials, we were permitted to move forward with the teacher training.”

patheos.com/blogs/buildingcathedrals/2008/05/whats-going-on-at-ccl/
Click to expand...
I also had my CCL exposure during those years (I think I bought the book around 2004) and I have heard that they have changed things since then and sort of pushed the Kippley’s aside. But I haven’t looked into it much since then.

I’m very glad they have changed their tune, it was very much needed. I think their approach turned many people away from NFP and even away from the Church. It makes me very angry that they were allowed to go into parishes and teach this method along with all the other fluff and pass it off as Church teaching…and to turn away faithful Catholic couples who wanted to teach because they don’t share a bed with their kids and practice EBF. And priests and Bishops allowed it to happen and supported it. I know for sure that if I was a Catholic struggling with my faith as it is and sat in on one of those classes and heard that nonsense, I would be VERY tempted to walk away from the Church and never look back. Most Catholics don’t know enough about Church teaching to be able to separate the NFP theology that IS Church teaching from the parenting style that is merely OPINION and has nothing to do with Church teaching.

How many Catholics were chased away with that nonsense?
 
whm said:
If the bolded is the case, there is only one choice, abstain. I would never put my wife’s life in this kind of danger.
Click to expand...
That’s all very well if both you and your wife agree, but what if she wasn’t onboard with your plan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top