New to posting - Family Planning Question

[thenewmrssears]

Hello, all!

I joined today, and I have enjoyed reading the other posts very much. I am a life-long Catholic and the product of a Catholic education with the exception of college where I attended a Lutheran school…and now I am attending a Baptist school part time for my MBA and Arabic Language + Literature certificate. I’m 24 years old and live in Atlanta. Now that I’ve introduced myself…

However, I really joined so I could get some insight on a question that is boggling my mind!

My husband and I are not quite at a point in our lives where we are ready to have kids. I’m in graduate school, and we are hoping that once I finish my company will be able to transfer me to another country to work in an international office. Kids are at least 5 years in our future unless God has other plans.

My question is this: If we are using NFP and purposely not being intimate during fertile periods, isn’t it a form of birth control?

I guess my question rests on the idea that if at any time you are avoiding pregnancy in a marriage, why is that not considered inappropriate birth control?

What is the difference between avoiding my most fertile times and using a birth control pill or condom or IUD?

Does this make sense?

I am really struggling with this whole concept. I have been praying for understanding, but I feel like I am falling short.

Thank you for your help! I am just looking for some answers to the question that has been driving me crazy for months!

I’ve been shy to ask a number of my Catholic friends, because there has been some backlash about our decision to wait to have children. While I respect their opinions of our decision, I feel that they may not, at this point in time, be the best source for an answer.

God bless.

 

[dixieagle]

Welcome!

This question has been addressed frequently in these forums, so if you do a search you will surely find some excellent discussion.

First, it is “artificial” birth control that the Church opposes - NOT the use of natural means to space or postpone births, for good reasons (your own well formed conscience must decide what “good reasons” are for you and your husband.)

NFP simply makes use of the God-given signs of fertility, and the couple does nothing to frustrate (interfere with) the marital act; this is very different from artificial means which prevent sperm from reaching egg, prevent implantation, etc. NFP maintains the “unitive and procreative” aspects of marriage.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Welcome to the forums!

My question is this: If we are using NFP and purposely not being intimate during fertile periods, isn’t it a form of birth control?

Yes, NFP is birth control. It can be used to try to achieve or avoid pregnancy. NFP works with the natural rhythm of a woman’s fertility, and doesn’t deny your spouse the gift of your fertility.

I guess my question rests on the idea that if at any time you are avoiding pregnancy in a marriage, why is that not considered inappropriate birth control?

Because you’re not taking God out of the equation. With artificial birth control (ABC) methods and sterilization, you are effectively telling God you don’t trust Him to use His creative process to bring about new life as He sees fit. Using ABC is like saying you want to enjoy the marital embrace without inviting Him.

What is the difference between avoiding my most fertile times and using a birth control pill or condom or IUD?

By avoiding your fertile times (as opposed to using ABC), you are still respecting the way God made your body and the way He made your spouse’s body.

The pill and IUD can cause abortions, so those are particularly problematic. In addition to being contraception, they could kill any babies conceived.

Does this make sense?

Of course your questions make sense! Lots of Catholics struggle with this particular Church teaching. Ultimately, I think, what it comes down to, is whether you think there are “right” versus “wrong” ways to achieve something. The ends does not justify the means.

For example, if 2 infertile couples want children, and one couple adopts, that is good. If the other couple goes next door and steals their neighbor’s baby, that’s bad. Both couples received the exact same result – they now have a baby – but clearly, one of them went about it the wrong way.

I would recommend reading Christopher West’s book, The Good News About Sex and Marriage, as well as listening to Dr. Janet Smith’s talk, Contraception - Why Not? Those two resources should really help you in understanding why the Church teaches as She does about ABC.

Dr. Smith’s talk can be found at omsoul.com/ .

Blessings to you! I hope I was helpful. I was trying to type really fast, as well as be fairly brief, so I may need to clarify things later…

 

[thenewmrssears]

Thank you! It does. I did a forum search. It seems I missed that feature earlier!

 

[Jennifer_J]

Welcome!

This question has been addressed frequently in these forums, so if you do a search you will surely find some excellent discussion.

First, it is “artificial” birth control that the Church opposes - NOT the use of natural means to space or postpone births, for good reasons (your own well formed conscience must decide what “good reasons” are for you and your husband.)

NFP simply makes use of the God-given signs of fertility, and the couple does nothing to frustrate (interfere with) the marital act; this is very different from artificial means which prevent sperm from reaching egg, prevent implantation, etc. NFP maintains the “unitive and procreative” aspects of marriage.

I hope that helps a bit.

I’m sorry to be picky, but the first part of your reasons is incorrect! It’s not the 'naturalness" or “artificialness” (are those words ) of a birth control method that makes it licit or not. The Church allows birth control–either total abstinence or periodic abstinence (via NFP) but certainly not contraception. The second part is correct: NFP is a licit form of birth control because both aspects of the marital embrace are kept intact–procreative (doesn’t mean fertile) and unitive. Each act of intercourse must be ordered to procreation, no interference by barriers or chemicals.

God bless!

 

[dixieagle]

I’m sorry to be picky, but the first part of your reasons is incorrect! It’s not the 'naturalness" or “artificialness” (are those words ) of a birth control method that makes it licit or not. The Church allows birth control–either total abstinence or periodic abstinence (via NFP) but certainly not contraception. The second part is correct: NFP is a licit form of birth control because both aspects of the marital embrace are kept intact–procreative (doesn’t mean fertile) and unitive. Each act of intercourse must be ordered to procreation, no interference by barriers or chemicals.

God bless!

I stand by my explanation. Read what I said carefully. Indeed the Church does prohibit “artificial birth control” - which IS contraception. Did you misunderstand or misread?

 

[nfpworks]

When you check out www.omsoul.com, look for NFP only OB/ GYN’s - I know there is at least 1 in Atlanta.

Also, the decision to postpone pregnancy in your marriage is between you, your husband and God. It’s not up to your family to make that decision ( or to make you feel guilty or anything else) for the decision that is made.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Jennifer_J]

I stand by my explanation. Read what I said carefully. Indeed the Church does prohibit “artificial birth control” - which IS contraception. Did you misunderstand or misread?

I’m not trying to be rude or anything, it’s just that the licitness of birth control it has nothing to do with artificial or natural–honestly it doesn’t. Contraception isn’t evil because it’s artificial, it’s evil because it’s against (frustrates) conception. NFP isn’t okay because it’s natural, it’s licit because it keeps the procreative and unitive aspects intact by keeping the act ordered to procreation. Controlling births is allowed using either total abstinence or periodic abstinence, controlling births by taking the possiblity of procreation away is not licit. Part of the problem is that people use the term birth control to mean contraception and in fact, it shouldn’t be used that way. Controlling births is licit, contraception isn’t. Does that make any sense?

 

[dixieagle]

I’m not trying to be rude or anything, it’s just that the licitness of birth control it has nothing to do with artificial or natural–honestly it doesn’t. Contraception isn’t evil because it’s artificial, it’s evil because it’s against (frustrates) conception. NFP isn’t okay because it’s natural, it’s licit because it keeps the procreative and unitive aspects intact by keeping the act ordered to procreation. Controlling births is allowed using either total abstinence or periodic abstinence, controlling births by taking the possiblity of procreation away is not licit. Part of the problem is that people use the term birth control to mean contraception and in fact, it shouldn’t be used that way. Controlling births is licit, contraception isn’t. Does that make any sense?

I used NFP for more than 20 years and am well versed in the theology behind it. I think you’re quibbling about semantics. It is called “natural family planning” for a reason; it uses no unnatural (artificial) means to avoid conception and separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act (which I referred to in my first post.) Contraception is “artificial birth control”, by definition: “the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation… by the use of birth control devices or agents”.

I do believe the term “birth control” has acquired a negative connotation which is why it doesn’t seem to be applied often to NFP.

 

[thenewmrssears]

Thank you very much for your help! I have ordered that book on Amazon.com that someone mentioned.

Luckily, my husband (who as I said in another post) is not Catholic, but he understands and appreciates the teaching of NFP. He, like me, does not believe in birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, etc.

Yes, unfortunately when you are just married though everyone thinks your reproductive choices are their business! Especially my in-laws! Of course, that is a whole different post for another day! LOL.

Thank you again. It is quite the concept to wrap one’s mind around while trying to balance so much else.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I used NFP for more than 20 years and am well versed in the theology behind it. I think you’re quibbling about semantics. It is called “natural family planning” for a reason; it uses no unnatural (artificial) means to avoid conception and separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act (which I referred to in my first post.) Contraception is “artificial birth control”, by definition: “the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation… by the use of birth control devices or agents”.

I do believe the term “birth control” has acquired a negative connotation which is why it doesn’t seem to be applied often to NFP.

I won’t argue with you, I’ll just say I really disagree with you on the matter and through my study of NFP for the last 12 years, I’m fairly certain that NO official Church document speaks of artificial and natural as the defining reason behind licitness/illicitness. I’m certainly willing to revisit the idea if given an official document…

 

[dixieagle]

I won’t argue with you, I’ll just say I really disagree with you on the matter and through my study of NFP for the last 12 years, I’m fairly certain that NO official Church document speaks of artificial and natural as the defining reason behind licitness/illicitness. I’m certainly willing to revisit the idea if given an official document…

To quote Humanae Vitae, the fortieth anniversary of which we note this year:

Observing the Natural Law

*God has wisely ordered laws of **nature *and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

When I talk about “natural”, I don’t mean it in the common, “earthy crunchy” sense, but as the word is used in the above excerpt, i.e., that which is according to nature (and natural law.) NFP is in conformity with this natural law, in no way interfering with God’s design. The unitive and procreative aspects are respected in each marital act.

Those specific methods of birth control which are contraceptive are in opposition to Humanae Vitae, are “unnatural” and artificial (“humanly contrived”, “lacking in natural or spontaneous quality”, or “man-made, false, misleading”) and interfere and manipulate nature, thereby frustrating what God intends.

I think we are actually on the same page, but, for some reason, not quite communicating…

 

[Jennifer_J]

To quote Humanae Vitae, the fortieth anniversary of which we note this year:

Observing the Natural Law

*God has wisely ordered laws of **nature ***and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

When I talk about “natural”, I don’t mean it in the common, “earthy crunchy” sense, but as the word is used in the above excerpt, i.e., that which is according to nature (and natural law.) NFP is in conformity with this natural law, in no way interfering with God’s design. The unitive and procreative aspects are respected in each marital act.

Those specific methods of birth control which are contraceptive are in opposition to Humanae Vitae, are “unnatural” and artificial (“humanly contrived”, “lacking in natural or spontaneous quality”, or “man-made, false, misleading”) and interfere and manipulate nature, thereby frustrating what God intends.

I think we are actually on the same page, but, for some reason, not quite communicating…

I think so, too, lol! Here’s an example where natural=licit is a problem: I’ve heard someone say that withdrawal was natural!!! Now you and I know that it’s contraceptive, right, but to a certain extent it is, “natural”. I think the emphasis of “natural” vs “artificial” is confusing for most people. I don’t even like the term “natural family planning” all that much, but no one asked me NFP is licit because it respects the natural law and is ordered toward procreation, even if engaging in the marital embrace during and infertile time.

BTW,I just reread this article-- catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp and toward the bottom of it it lists 2 questions/answers about nfp (probably more closely related to the rhythm method at that point) dating from the late 1800’s, I found that fascinating!!

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here’s the section from the Catechism that covers this…
Here’s the link…

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

    When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

    Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

 

[dixieagle]

I think so, too, lol! Here’s an example where natural=licit is a problem: I’ve heard someone say that withdrawal was natural!!! Now you and I know that it’s contraceptive, right, but to a certain extent it is, “natural”. I think the emphasis of “natural” vs “artificial” is confusing for most people. I don’t even like the term “natural family planning” all that much, but no one asked me NFP is licit because it respects the natural law and is ordered toward procreation, even if engaging in the marital embrace during and infertile time.

BTW,I just reread this article-- catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp and toward the bottom of it it lists 2 questions/answers about nfp (probably more closely related to the rhythm method at that point) dating from the late 1800’s, I found that fascinating!!

Excellent article, of course; sums everything up well.

Those folks who think withdrawal is “natural” need to do some studying; then again, they may simply be fooling themselves.

 

[ChristinaM]

Hi and welcome to the boards! My DH and I also got married July 5. You have already gotten great answers to your questions but I just wanted to say hello. There are a couple of us who are newly wed and can certainly relate.

From personal experience, the best way to keep people out of your business is to keep it YOUR business. Our choice to use NFP is between my husband and myself. I’d certainly never discuss it with, say, my MIL, who donates to NARAL and would probably much rather have me on the Pill. It is good to have these boards because I don’t know too many people IRL who use NFP, sadly.