NFP and anxiety disorder

[whatevergirl]

Right.

That’s the harsh truth about the matter. That is what the Church teaches. Sucks don’t it? For people that absoutely cannot have another child…they have to abstain. No ands, if’s or buts.

Some folks proclaim that NFP is 100% effective and it will solve all your problems. But that’s not right. It’s not 100% effective and there is no other recourse for Catholics. It’s a heartless teaching and it’s potentially (and in some cases, actually) damaging famililes.

Hi PM;

The RCC does not teach that if a couple cannot achieve conception, that they are called to be abstinent. That is not so. You have to have sex in the ways prescribed in the CCC, but if the procreative element is removed because they are physically limited in some way, they can still have sex, as long as the act concludes in intercourse.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Some folks proclaim that NFP is 100% effective and it will solve all your problems. But that’s not right. It’s not 100% effective and there is no other recourse for Catholics. It’s a heartless teaching and it’s potentially (and in some cases, actually) damaging famililes.

If you require 100% effectiveness, 100% abstinence is your only recourse whether you are Catholic or not (outside of truly dramatic things like elective hysterectomy or castration that have serious health impacts of their own). Implying that this fact is the “fault” of NFP is intellectually dishonest, and you have already had that pointed out to you in several other threads in my recent memory.

Also, aside from critics of NFP like yourself, who of the NFP advocates has proclaimed that NFP was 100% effective? Since you keep coming back to this, please provide book citations or a thread links please, not just another circular reference to your self-created straw man.

Quite frankly, the extent to which you twist things around when discussing this issue is causing me to have significant doubts as to whether your case was a true method failure or part of your pattern of ignoring the obvious then placing blame inappropriately when doing so turned around and bit you.

 

[monicatholic]

PenitentMan,

That’s the harsh truth about the matter. That is what the Church teaches. Sucks don’t it? For people that absoutely cannot have another child…they have to abstain. No ands, if’s or buts.

Some folks proclaim that NFP is 100% effective and it will solve all your problems. But that’s not right. It’s not 100% effective and there is no other recourse for Catholics. It’s a heartless teaching and it’s potentially (and in some cases, actually) damaging famililes.

That’s not the teaching of the Church. that’s biology. sex is for bonding and babies. if a couple absolutely cannot risk pregnancy, then no form of pregnancy avoidance is safe except for abstinance.

contraception is the sexual correlative of binging and purging. it is entirely more unhealthy to partners than the prayerful acceptance of medically motivated total abstinance.

that’s not rhetoric. that’s truth.

 

[PennitentMan]

What about non-abortive contraception?

I cannot believe that it’s intrinsically evil as the Church labels it.

Non-Abortive ABC in conjunction with NFP may increase the odds of saving the parent’s life.
But even if the life is in danger it’s a no-no…it doesn’t make sense and unnecessarily hard. It drives people away.

 

[whatevergirl]

what is non abortive contraception–anyone? I am afraid I don’t know this.

 

[kage_ar]

Right.

That’s the harsh truth about the matter. That is what the Church teaches. Sucks don’t it?

No more than any other of the teaching of the Church “sucks”.

We must attend Mass on all the Holy Days of Obligation, every single Sunday and all those other days. Does the fact that you cannot laze about on the weekends “suck”?

We cannot have pre-marital sex. That one “sucks”, don’t it?

No drunkeness or other form of gluttony - talk about a kill joy!!

Marriage is about much MORE than sex, when a couple gets to the place where they really embrace that - it is amazing the depths of closeness and love that the true Sacrament of Marriage is.

NFP is not easy. Being a Christian is not easy - Jesus TOLD us that many times, he also told us to be anxious about nothing, but in everything with prayer and thanksgiving let our requests be know to God. Ask God to give you peace in your marriage.

Prayers.

 

[PennitentMan]

Also, aside from critics of NFP like yourself, who of the NFP advocates has proclaimed that NFP was 100% effective? Since you keep coming back to this, please provide book citations or a thread links please, not just another circular reference to your self-created straw man.

from CCL website:

100% Method Effectiveness

Between 1976 and 1978, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conducted a prospective study to determine the relative user effectiveness of two different systems of Natural Family Planning.1 Participants were randomly assigned to either the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) or Ovulation Method (OM) sides of the study. However, they were first screened to eliminate any couples who had a serious health, economic, or social reason to avoid pregnancy. The resulting group of 1257 couples had an average age of 28 and had only one child per family.

In the STM side of the Los Angeles study, couples determined the end of Phase I by using a calculation based on the woman’s previous cycle history (short cycle minus 21 equals the last day of Phase I) and cross-checked that with the continued absence of mucus. They determined the start of Phase III by cross-checking three days of well elevated temperatures with four days of the disappearance of the cervical mucus which characterizes the fertile time.

The couples who followed these simple rules achieved a 100% effectiveness rate in avoiding pregnancy, i.e., zero unplanned pregnancies. (The couples who used the OM rules had 5.67 unplanned pregnancies per 100 woman years of exposure, i.e., about a 94% method effectiveness rate. Better OM results were achieved in a five nation World Health Organization study: a standard Pearl rate of 2.6; i.e. a 97.4% effectiveness rate.)2

A 100% effectiveness rate cannot be sustained in a large population and thus claims made for the STM state “99% method effectiveness.”

 

[PennitentMan]

what is non abortive contraception–anyone? I am afraid I don’t know this.

Any contraceptive device that does not cause abortions…lie Condoms, spermacide Gel, Diaphrams, even sterilization is non-abortive.

Abortive ABC is the pill and IUD’s for example.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What about non-abortive contraception?

I cannot believe that it’s intrinsically evil as the Church labels it.

Non-Abortive ABC in conjunction with NFP may increase the odds of saving the parent’s life.
But even if the life is in danger it’s a no-no…it doesn’t make sense and unnecessarily hard. It drives people away.

The problem with this is that you’re relying on something statistically WORSE!.. it doesn’t make any logical sense.

The logical solution would be to get as EDUCATED on the subject of NFP as possible.
PM… I know you and your wife struggled with NFP… but did you REALLY study it extensively? If her cycles were as abnormal as you say, were you talking to your local NFP instructor on a REGULAR basis and asking for assistance in reading the charts? Were you seeing an NFP doctor that could help you figure out what was going on to make her cycles so abnormal?

I know you’ve read this… but from the catechism…

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

 

[whatevergirl]

Any contraceptive device that does not cause abortions…lie Condoms, spermacide Gel, Diaphrams, even sterilization is non-abortive.

Abortive ABC is the pill and IUD’s for example.

okay–thank you.

 

[PennitentMan]

Any contraceptive device that does not cause abortions…lie Condoms, spermacide Gel, Diaphrams, even sterilization is non-abortive.

I wanted to add NFP to this list, but I think I’d get cuber-murdered if I dare to equate NFP to a non-abortive contraception.

 

[PennitentMan]

statistically

That’s the key word isn’t it?

The logical solution would be to get as EDUCATED on the subject of NFP as possible.

Em, I know you mean well, but in this case education only goes so far.
Yes on all your questions. we covered it all. Went over the charts, studied the methods, spoke ot the councillors and the Doctors.

I know you’ve read this… but from the catechism…

Quote:
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

I have to bring your attention to this gem:

Look at the second part of this paragraph:
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

Surely NFP is such an action. Hence NFP is intrinsically evil too. No question about that. It’s contradictory.

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

How can you not give yourself totally to your spouse in sex? It’s not about giving yourself it’s engaging in something that is potentially life threatening.
The duality of sex is seriously difficult to grasp, especially those who don’t live it, but only see it in theory.
Marriage is about unity between a man and a woman. It’s also about pro-creation.
If by pro-creating, you endanger the life of the spouse, then by definition you also have to take away the unitive aspect of marriage, placing immense strain on the marriage.
Why then, when technolgy has allowed for this enviroment to be healed, the intimacy be placed back in an otherwise broken marriage, is it not taught, in strict terms (of course)?
When we use technology to assit in other aspects of life, we marvel at our genious…
As per the CCC, there is no difference…the Church has to label NFP intrinsically evil.
And the concept of non-abortive contraception is not against nature, it can be used for helping married couples.
It cannot be intrinsically evil, any more that NFP is intrinsically evil. It can be used for good.

 

[PennitentMan]

Go and do some research, and debunk the CCL website, it’s possible…pretty much anything can be proven if you search hard enough.

But walk a mile in the shoes of someone for whom it doesn’t work. Who has to see his wife threaten suicide. To lie awake at night worrying about the future.
Who also is racked with guilt and temptations of the flesh because the unity is gone from his marriage.

Then come back.

I was once like you guys, swaering by it…but live it and then we’ll talk.

We are being told to have babies, use NFP if that doesn’t work or practice abstinence.

If we get babies that result from this teachings, where is the Church to help us support the children?
Catholic Daycare.
Catholic Nurses to assist the poor wifes.
Catholic financial assistance?

Nothing.

Just, “I’m sorry NFP doesn’t work for you, there’s nothing Ican do, except tell you to practice abstinence. But tht will probably ruin you or cause you a life of suffering and heartache and loneliness and yearning…”

Yeah, life is suffering.

But this can be avoided! All logic points to that!

I just don’t know anymore…

 

[Em_in_FL]

I have to bring your attention to this gem:

Look at the second part of this paragraph:
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

Surely NFP is such an action. Hence NFP is intrinsically evil too. No question about that. It’s contradictory.

Nope… you read it wrong… that paragraph implies that the conjugal act is PERFORMED…
NFP is deciding whether or not to perform that act. Not performing is not the same as performing the conjugal act while taking an action to render procreation impossible…

HTH!

 

[PennitentMan]

Nope… you read it wrong… that paragraph implies that the conjugal act is PERFORMED…
NFP is deciding whether or not to perform that act. Not performing is not the same as performing the conjugal act while taking an action to render procreation impossible…

HTH!

I look at the chart, I read the termometer and I decide on an action of not having sex.
It’s the same thing. By something I do, denying my wife intimacy, I render procreation impossible when it’s possible to happen.

 

[Em_in_FL]

As per the CCC, there is no difference…the Church has to label NFP intrinsically evil.
And the concept of non-abortive contraception is not against nature, it can be used for helping married couples.
It cannot be intrinsically evil, any more that NFP is intrinsically evil. It can be used for good.

More from Humanae Vitae, which is referenced in the CCC…

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I look at the chart, I read the termometer and I decide on an action of not having sex.
It’s the same thing. By something I do, denying my wife intimacy, I render procreation impossible when it’s possible to happen.

(Not having sex) is NOT EQUAL to (having sex while using contraception)…

It’s a logic equation… it’s the meaning of what is in the catechism.
Please read it correctly.

 

[kage_ar]

If we get babies that result from this teachings, where is the Church to help us support the children?
Catholic Daycare.
Catholic Nurses to assist the poor wifes.
Catholic financial assistance?

Begin with you local Catholic Charities or SVDP.

The Catholic Church does more charitable work than any other group!

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Penitent man. Congratulations on your wife’s pregnancy. You have been given an amazing gift. I know you don’t see it now. There are no accidents with God. God bless you and give you and your wife peace.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Non-Abortive ABC in conjunction with NFP may increase the odds of saving the parent’s life.
But even if the life is in danger it’s a no-no…it doesn’t make sense and unnecessarily hard. It drives people away.

Again, if you require 100% effectiveness, 100% abstinence is your only recourse whether you are Catholic or not (outside of truly dramatic things like elective hysterectomy or castration that have serious health impacts of their own).

from CCL website:

that study report clearly states that the 100% was only the outcome of a small study and emphasized that the actual effectiveness rate would be 99%, right there in the last line of what you pasted in. Do you have a citation to an NFP advocacy group actually proclaiming NFP is 100% effective, or is twisting what has actually been said the best you can do?