Is NFP "normal"

[spacecadet]

SemperJase:

NFP is a recent development in birth control.

ummmmmmmm not entirely. indiginous cultures in australia and africa used mucous methods. also natural spacing from BF was the norm but due to many reasons: western diet, exposure to artificial lights at night, non-natural BF practices that has been lost in much of the west

 

[vluvski]

Prayers needed right NOW on this issue:
My non-Catholic friend who is about to get married has asked me about NFP, and we’re going out to dinner tonight.
She does have a serious reason to avoid, IMO… she’s a funeral director, which includes embalming the dead, and those chemicals are known to cause some pretty serious birth defects if the mother is exposed. Also her husband is active duty military, so he could be called back up at any point.
Hopefully the Holy Spirit will guide me to make an honest and compelling case as to why NFP is highly superior. The rest is up to them!
Thanks all!

 

[1ke]

vluvski:

Prayers needed right NOW on this issue:
My non-Catholic friend who is about to get married has asked me about NFP, and we’re going out to dinner tonight.
She does have a serious reason to avoid, IMO… she’s a funeral director, which includes embalming the dead, and those chemicals are known to cause some pretty serious birth defects if the mother is exposed. Also her husband is active duty military, so he could be called back up at any point.
Hopefully the Holy Spirit will guide me to make an honest and compelling case as to why NFP is highly superior. The rest is up to them!
Thanks all!

You can download brochures from www.omsoul.com

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

Yes, the church believes it is wrong. You do know that the majority of Catholics in the U.S use birth control.

Yes, lots of people damaging their souls and, if done with full knowledge and consent, mortally sinning.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

SemperJase:

A poster on this board is considering divorce because his wife is physically unable to have intercourse. He viewed any other sexual activity with his wife as sinful.

Even though they have had intercourse he believes it doesn’t count because they never “finished”. As such he believes he is eligible for an annulment. He would rather divorce his wife and never marry again than remain married and be tempted into actions other than intercourse for marital intimacy.

First of all, if a person is physically unable to have intercourse permanently, they aren’t allowed to marry in the Catholic Church. Second, if once a couple is married, one because physically unable to have intercourse, they cannot get an annulment for that reason. If their marriage was valid, impotence later in life does not change it. No one can divorce because of impotence showing up later.

If a marriage has not been consumed, it can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason.

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

So let’s say that a couple uses NFP and contrary to statistics it was 100% effective for them and they do not have children. Are they being sinful?

Sin requires full knowledge and consent. If there were a sin, the sin would not be NFP itself. The sin would be one of greed, sloth, etc, whatever the reason was for rejecting children within the marriage without a just reason. Not all persons who remain childless do so sinfully. Only those who do so without just reason.

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

NFP is a recent development in birth control.

Abstinence is not new. NFP is merely a method of obeserving the female cycle that allows less abstinence.

 

[1ke]

lifeisbeautiful:

First of all, if a person is physically unable to have intercourse permanently, they aren’t allowed to marry in the Catholic Church. Second, if once a couple is married, one because physically unable to have intercourse, they cannot get an annulment for that reason. If their marriage was valid, impotence later in life does not change it. No one can divorce because of impotence showing up later.

If a marriage has not been consumed, it can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason.

Well, this is mostly accurate. But, if there was no known impotence at the time of the wedding but it is not consummated b/c impotence is discovered upon attempting to consummate then the ratified, but unconsummated, marriage indeed can be annulled.

 

[SemperJase]

1ke:

Well, this is mostly accurate. But, if there was no known impotence at the time of the wedding but it is not consummated b/c impotence is discovered upon attempting to consummate then the ratified, but unconsummated, marriage indeed can be annulled.

This is the claim in this case. He says they have had intercourse but since it hurt too much for him to “finish” it is not consumated. They have also apparently engaged in other activities which he now feels are sinful.

Now I’m guessing if I had intercourse with another woman but didn’t finish, my wife would still leave me for cheating on her.

Penetration is sex. In addition, we know that people do get pregnant with coitus interuptus. That is in spite of lack of “finishing” there are still emissions.

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

This is the claim in this case. He says they have had intercourse but since it hurt too much for him to “finish” it is not consumated. They have also apparently engaged in other activities which he now feels are sinful.

Now I’m guessing if I had intercourse with another woman but didn’t finish, my wife would still leave me for cheating on her.

Penetration is sex. In addition, we know that people do get pregnant with coitus interuptus. That is in spite of lack of “finishing” there are still emissions.

The claim is for a tribunal to decide, should the spouse choose to pursue it.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

1ke:

Well, this is mostly accurate. But, if there was no known impotence at the time of the wedding but it is not consummated b/c impotence is discovered upon attempting to consummate then the ratified, but unconsummated, marriage indeed can be annulled.

If a marriage has not been consummated, it can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason.

From Canon Law:
Can. 1142 A non‚consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and an unapprised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

Dissolving is not the same as annulling. Annulment means the marriage was never there.

 

[1ke]

lifeisbeautiful:

If a marriage has not been consummated, it can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason.

From Canon Law:
Can. 1142 A non‚consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and an unapprised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

Dissolving is not the same as annulling. Annulment means the marriage was never there.

IMHO this canon is referring to a non-consummated marriage for a reason other than the impediment of impotence. I think that impotence would still fall under impediment and annulment. Just what I’ve read on the subject and discussed w/people I know who do tribunal work. But, I’m not a canon lawyer. It would need to be submitted first and then from there they would guide the petitioner.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

1ke:

IMHO this canon is referring to a non-consummated marriage for a reason other than the impediment of impotence. I think that impotence would still fall under impediment and annulment. Just what I’ve read on the subject and discussed w/people I know who do tribunal work. But, I’m not a canon lawyer. It would need to be submitted first and then from there they would guide the petitioner.

Ok, I agree it would need to be submitted and they can go on from there. Anyways, in my original example I said if the impotence occurred after marriage, not before, that it would not be a valid reason to receive an annulment. Also, keep in mind that for it to be an impediment it has to be antecedent and perpetual impotence, if there is a doubt, a marriage cannot be declared null.

Can. 1084 ß1 **Antecedent and perpetual impotence ** to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

ß2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is** not ** to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

Anyways, with relation to the main topic, why does it matter if NFP is “normal” according to soome definition or not?

 

[1ke]

lifeisbeautiful:

Anyways, with relation to the main topic, why does it matter if NFP is “normal” according to soome definition or not?

It doesn’t.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

1ke:

It doesn’t.

I just added that to not be totally off topic

 

[Jocelyn]

I have a question. I am questioning NFP seriously.
Why and how did the church change it’s teaching on sex from procreative to unitive? How can the church change a teaching? I thought Rome was infallible. I am seriously seeking answers, so please no insults. It will turn me off to this board, and insulting is not a way to get a point across on a touchy issue.

This is my thought. I am praying about this, so please note that I am open to NFP.

I just don’t get it.

Back in the day when families of 18 were existant is when people truly believed in God’s providence. Where today do we see families of 18? Back im my grandmother’s day, and even my parents these large families were EVERYWHERE!!! There was no such thing as a VALID reason for not having a child. They did with what they had, and still accepted children.

I don’t get the valid thing. What is considered to be a valid reason? I know it is between God and the couple, but to be honest, I don’t think I would ever have a valid reason, therefore, I would have 10 children.

Please don’t say health, income, or strength. Are we not to believe and trust in God.

If NFP had existed in the time of the great Saints(St. Francis of Assisi, St. Therese) then these great saints may not have lived because the parents had a valid reason.

I don’t get it when NFPers say that they are open to life anytime. No you aren’t. You are saying,“Honey, we can’t make love for the next 3 days, because I am ovulating and we don’t want a child. However, we can makelove all we want when I am not fertile.” The NFP couple is saying no to God also.

If my parents used NFP, I may not be here. They would have had a valid reason for me not existing. They would have been saying no to God.

I want to believe in NFP with all my heart as it is a teaching of the church. I want to believe in it like I believe in the Eucharist, confession, etc. I hope someone can gently lead the way.

I am not trying to be rude. These questions need to be answered for me to accept it.

Who discovered NFP and what year was it instituted into the Church?

Thank you

 

[SemperJase]

Jocelyn,

I have many of your reservations. The whole point of NFP is to avoid pregnancy yet being “open” to life. It seems that being open to life therefore is to use a method of birth control that is not 100% effective. Of course condoms are not 100% effective. If I use them I know this. So why is taking a chance with condoms and accepting the risk of pregnancy not being open to life?

I’ve read the history of Pope Paul VI’s decision. He had many theologians and lay people advise him on this decision. Overwhelmingly they recommended the use of birth control within marriage. He obviously rejected their recommendations.

This is the one teaching I don’t understand as it is seemingly full of contradiction. “Natural” family planning is not natural as women need to avoid intercourse at the time of the month when they are most likely to desire it. That doesn’t sound natural.

At what percentage of birth control failure does one become more open to life?

The fact that over half of catholics disagree with this teaching shows that there are plenty of problems with it. That doesn’t mean the teaching is wrong. It means the church has not done a good job of proving why it is right.

 

[felra]

Jocelyn:

I have a question. I am questioning NFP seriously.
Why and how did the church change it’s teaching on sex from procreative to unitive? How can the church change a teaching? I thought Rome was infallible. I am seriously seeking answers, so please no insults. It will turn me off to this board, and insulting is not a way to get a point across on a touchy issue.

This is my thought. I am praying about this, so please note that I am open to NFP.

I just don’t get it.

I want to believe in NFP with all my heart as it is a teaching of the church. I want to believe in it like I believe in the Eucharist, confession, etc. I hope someone can gently lead the way.

I am not trying to be rude. These questions need to be answered for me to accept it.

Who discovered NFP and what year was it instituted into the Church?

Thank you

This is a serious response to your normal and typical questioning and apparant lack of consistency with the Church’s teaching on NFP as it relates to the fecundity (fruitfulness) of marriage and the conjugal love responsibility of a couple concerning the regulation of births. Unfortunately, the Church, via pastoral and instructive lay Catholics, have done an at best mixed job of educating and instructing the laity in the coherency and consonance of NFp as the only morally acceptable method to cooperate with God the Father the Creator as co-creators (bringing into existance a new eternal being) in the sacrament of marriage.

I would direct you as a good starting point is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections #2360 to 2372 which deals with the dognity and responsibiity of the vocation of marriage and childbearing – scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

I wold also strongly recommend reading the relatively brief and readable encyclical Humanae Vitae – – and highlight read the longer previous related encyclical – . Unfortunately many Catholics want a spoon fed faith or a “don’t ask don’t tell” faith and do not take the required responsibility and initiative to do some homework to learn what and the why’s of the teaching behind NFP (I do not presume this of you).

God bless.

 

[felra]

Jocelyn,

I have many of your reservations. The whole point of NFP is to avoid pregnancy yet being “open” to life. It seems that being open to life

therefore is to use a method of birth control that is not 100% effective. Of course condoms are not 100% effective. If I use them I know this. So why is taking a chance with condoms and accepting the risk of pregnancy not being open to life?

being open to life – means to introduce no artificial barriers or means to the procreative potential of the marital act.

This is the one teaching I don’t understand as it is seemingly full of contradiction. “Natural” family planning is not natural as women need to avoid intercourse at the time of the month when they are most likely to desire it. That doesn’t sound natural

.
NFP is countercultural and goes against the grain of where our bodies and desires would have us immediately go. This is why it is essential to cooperate with God’s grace by educating (as you are doing here by asking honest, tough, critiquing questions as to the merit and reasoning of NFP), reflecting and praying to allow this most important teaching to permeate and soak in as the Holy Spirit gives illumination and the grace to accept and do what is honorable in the marital relationship.

At what percentage of birth control failure does one become more open to life?

There are only 3 ways that a couple is 100% birth proof – abstinence, hysterectomy, castration. “Percentage” of effectiveness is not a variable of being “open to life”. NFP does not act against the procreative potential of conjugal sexual love.

The fact that over half of catholics disagree with this teaching shows that there are plenty of problems with it. That doesn’t mean the teaching is wrong. It means the church has not done a good job of proving why it is right.

I agree that the Church needs to do a better job of teaching, “making the case” if you will, but also the laity in many cases need to stop behaving like disinfected, disobediant, self-serving children and assume the needed responsibility before God their Creator to educate themselves and get it right, in spite of … See my post to Jocelyn for starters resources toward this end.

 

[puzzleannie]

SemperJase:

In another thread I saw that comment that a couple who practiced NFP where “normal”, inferring that a couple using birth control was not normal.

Now considering that “normal” usually refers to something being typical, it seems NFP practitioners are not normal.

I think you hit the nail on the head, the problem in such a statement lies in the usage of the word “normal”. It can be a term in psychology describing behavior that exhibits the “norm” in mental, physical and spiritual health. From a Catholic perspective, so beautifully articulated by our late dear pope in Evangelium Vitae and the Theology of the Body, that means behavior which most closely conforms to that which leads us to our fullest human potential, endowed by the Creator, what He decreed as normal: sexual expression as the fullest sign of committed, covenant marriage between one man and one woman, fully open to acceptance of God’s gift of life, the principal good of marriage. Anything that interferes with the fullness of unity between the husband and wife impairs what the Creator intended as “normal”, which is the root of the Church ban on abc.

Normal can also be a term in statistics, and math majors please correct me if my terminology is wrong. In analyzing data collected about a population, there is the mean-- X instances above the mean and X instances below the mean. there is the average: total the outcomes and divide by the number of measurements. There is the norm, the range of measurements within which the majority of individuals fall. Normal in that sense only reflects a mathematical analysis of the behaviors to be measured within a population. As a purely mathematical term it conveys no moral weight as to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the behavior.

For instance a scientific sampling or survey of American eating practices would probably show that the majority of Americans eat way too much fast food (now officially recognized by act of Congress as harmful). Just because that is “normal” American behavior, in the mathematical sense, does not make it healthful or beneficial to individuals or to the society that has to deal with the results through increased costs of health care etc. It is clearly not “normal” behavior in the sense of activity that contributes to the best health and functioning of the individual.