NFP and contraception

[Mary_Gail_36]

Oh dear. This is SO NOT DIFFICULT to understand. NFP is indeed a “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”, PERIOD! And will you people please STOP setting up this strawman argument that sex during infertile phases is permitted? NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT! What we are arguing is that sex, when timed specifically in order to avoid pregnancy using highly sophisticated and accurate scientific techniques, WOULD HAVE BEEN illicit in the early Church! This IS a contraceptive practice. One wishes to have sex, and employs scientific knowledge, measurements and techniques in order to AVOID CONCEPTION! This is the very definition of CONTRA(against)CEPTION(conception).

Seriously, STOP. Please. It is simple English derived from Latin. STOP TWISTING IT!

No, it isn’t. It is AVOIDING sexual intercourse. One does nothing to render the infertile days infertile. I can’t prevent a pregnancy by having unprotected sex when I can’t conceive to begin with.

The pregnancy is avoided by avoiding sex. It does not fit the Oxford definition of “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”

It isn’t a strawman.

Especially when the dictionary goes on to list the major forms of contraception as an example and look NFP’s not on the list (or even rythmn method or even fertility awareness)

 

[LaSainte]

No, it isn’t. It is AVOIDING sexual intercourse. One does nothing to render the infertile days infertile. I can’t prevent a pregnancy by having unprotected sex when I can’t conceive to begin with.

The pregnancy is avoided by avoiding sex. It does not fit the Oxford definition of “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”

It isn’t a strawman.

Especially when the dictionary goes on to list the major forms of contraception as an example and look NFP’s not on the list (or even rythmn method or even fertility awareness)

Baloney. But, if you choose to make your own definitions, then I cannot argue with you. If I say an elephant is a unicorn and that’s that, well, the discussion pretty much stops there now doesn’t it?

Yes, the definition lists a few of the most popular and (according to the definition itself) “well-known” forms of contraception, but it is not an exhaustive list and it does not claim to be. The list doesn’t mention the withdrawal method either now does it?

Shall we break down the definition for you? Let’s start with the first part: “The DELIBERATE use…” As we know, deliberate is an adjective that means “done consciously and intentionally”. Do people practice or “use” NFP DELIBERATELY? I think we would all agree that yes, all practitioners of NFP do so deliberately.

Moving on…

“…of techniques…” What is a technique? Let’s see…it is a noun that means “a way of carrying out a specific task, especially a work of art or a scientific procedure”. I think we can all agree that such scientific procedures as taking one’s temperature, charting the results, checking cervical mucous and position and using ovulation predictor kits are indeed “techniques”, yes?

Moving on…

“…to prevent pregnancy…” This one is a no-brainer. The primary purpose of NFP for the vast majority of couples is to prevent pregnancy.

Moving on…

“…as a consequence of intercourse.” A consequence is a noun meaning “an effect or result of a specific action”. And we all know what intercourse is (at least I hope we do!). Using NFP, a couple goes to great effort and length to divorce the natural CONSEQUENCE of sex (pregnancy or conception) from the act of intercourse itself by ensuring through many different methods that they never, ever have sex during a fertile time. They deny their natural desires and urges and organize their sex lives around ensuring that the sex act is always unfruitful. Where the Church says that the primary end, purpose, or consequence of sex is and should be the creation of new life, NFP acts to separate the act of sex from procreation by engaging in it ONLY when it CANNOT be fruitful. This is indeed an attempt to separate the ACT of intercourse from its primary PURPOSE or CONSEQUENCE.

NFP IS CONTRACEPTION, and pretending that it isn’t by attempting to redefine the meaning of the word only serves to weaken your argument rather than bolster it. It reeks of desperation.

 

[LittleDeb]

Seriously, STOP. Please. It is simple English derived from Latin. STOP TWISTING IT!

You are arguing *against *the teaching of Popes from of the *Latin *rite of the Catholic Church!

Are you seriously arguing that you have a better understanding of Latin and English than our very learned theologians and Popes?! By arguing that NFP is equal to contraception you are setting yourself outside the consistent teaching of the Church.

I am sorry that your grandmother and grandfather had a difficult time with abstinence. You are mistaken on what her problem charting was. What you have described is not how ovulation works. The ovaries don’t switch back and forth, and they certainly do not do so in the same month. What your grandmother had was a specific health problem that can be *helped *and often cured, through the charting used in NFP. The doctors from her time were very ignorant as to how charting works and often would tell people things like you describe because they really didn’t know what they were talking about, (and they still don’t know most of the time.) What she probably had was a double mucous patch. It means that she was in estrogen dominance due to low progesterone. She didn’t release a second egg. What happened is that she didn’t actually release an egg at the *first *mucous patch. What she had was a long ovulatory phase and a short luteal phase. Her children are quite the blessing. A lot of women who have that can be more prone to miscarriage.

She might have had a lot of fatigue problems too. Deficient progesterone will do that to you. Many women from that era lived on coffee, or cigarettes, or some other form of stimulant. (Though, with her 8 pregnancies, she probably boosted her progesterone quite nicely. They were probably very beneficial to her health, overall.) I truly am sorry that your grandparents were not willing to practice continence, due to your grandmother’s health. Contraception would not have helped her. The health problems would have remained. Had she used the Pill, she might have felt temporarily better, because the steroid progestin mimics progesterone in the hypothalamus. But, when you stay on a steroid for too long you get all the accompanying problems that athletes get when they use steroids, including shrunken gonads, aggression, and depression. Eventually you get tumors and cysts too. Some are cancerous, others grow and are absorbed on their own. (Some people with estrogen dominance get cancer even without the Pill because they had cysts on their ovaries from not releasing the eggs. SOme of those cysts can be malignant.)

It has been difficult to read your posts because of the level of misinformation you have. But, many are fairly common myths that repeat and expand with each generation. Contraception is the *act of breaking *a procreative design. Choosing not to act on fertility does nothing. There is no act to break. I understand that you just don’t get this right now. To be contra- anything, an *act *must be taking place. Please, please listen to our late Holy Fathers (and our current Holy Father). They really do have infallibility since this is a topic of both faith *and *morals.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Baloney. But, if you choose to make your own definitions, then I cannot argue with you. If I say an elephant is a unicorn and that’s that, well, the discussion pretty much stops there now doesn’t it?

Yes, the definition lists a few of the most popular and (according to the definition itself) “well-known” forms of contraception, but it is not an exhaustive list and it does not claim to be. The list doesn’t mention the withdrawal method either now does it?

Shall we break down the definition for you? Let’s start with the first part: “The DELIBERATE use…” As we know, deliberate is an adjective that means “done consciously and intentionally”. Do people practice or “use” NFP DELIBERATELY? I think we would all agree that yes, all practitioners of NFP do so deliberately.

Moving on…

“…of techniques…” What is a technique? Let’s see…it is a noun that means “a way of carrying out a specific task, especially a work of art or a scientific procedure”. I think we can all agree that such scientific procedures as taking one’s temperature, charting the results, checking cervical mucous and position and using ovulation predictor kits are indeed “techniques”, yes?

Moving on…

“…to prevent pregnancy…” This one is a no-brainer. The primary purpose of NFP for the vast majority of couples is to prevent pregnancy.

Moving on…

“…as a consequence of intercourse.” A consequence is a noun meaning “an effect or result of a specific action”. And we all know what intercourse is (at least I hope we do!). Using NFP, a couple goes to great effort and length to divorce the natural CONSEQUENCE of sex (pregnancy or conception) from the act of intercourse itself by ensuring through many different methods that they never, ever have sex during a fertile time. They deny their natural desires and urges and organize their sex lives around ensuring that the sex act is always unfruitful. Where the Church says that the primary end, purpose, or consequence of sex is and should be the creation of new life, NFP acts to separate the act of sex from procreation by engaging in it ONLY when it CANNOT be fruitful. This is indeed an attempt to separate the ACT of intercourse from its primary PURPOSE or CONSEQUENCE.

NFP IS CONTRACEPTION, and pretending that it isn’t by attempting to redefine the meaning of the word only serves to weaken your argument rather than bolster it. It reeks of desperation.

Not dsperate at all, I know how sex works and conception.

The pregnancy is avoided by avoiding sex. It does not fit the Oxford definition of “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”

You didn’t answer HOW unprotected sex prevents pregnancy. (sex during infertile times)

(btw, your all caps button must be not functioning, I wouldn’t think you are yelling at me )

 

[LaSainte]

Read the journal “Fertility and Sterility” volume 80, page 116. A Canadian study has indeed found that a good percentage of women ovulate twice a month, making NFP almost impossible for these women. My grandmother did not have “health issues” that would have been cleared up by NFP as much as proponents like to say it’s a one-size-fits-all method of birth control. My grandmother always felt great and was and is perfectly healthy to this day. She had wonderful pregnancies and loads of energy. No, they were not going to enter into a Josephite marriage for 30 years because of her high fertility, no reason to be sorry about that. They deserved every scrap of pleasure they could glean from the life they were given, which was harder than I can ever imagine.

And as much as you wish it were so, the Catholic Church doesn’t get to decide how words are defined. That is left to linguists and etymologists (of which I am one) and is a much more complex process than simply deciding what one WANTS a word to mean, and anyone who thinks infallibility extends to the definition of words relating to teachings on faith and morals has a serious misunderstanding of infallibility.

 

[LaSainte]

Not dsperate at all, I know how sex works and conception.

The pregnancy is avoided by avoiding sex. It does not fit the Oxford definition of “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”

You didn’t answer HOW unprotected sex prevents pregnancy. (sex during infertile times)

(btw, your all caps button must be not functioning, I wouldn’t think you are yelling at me )

I am officially ignoring your blatant and desperate attempts to redefine English words and their Latin roots, and if you don’t understand how NFP (or as you have now decided to rename it “unprotected sex”) prevents pregnancy, then you have some studying to do, but I have a feeling you’re just playing dumb.

 

[Calliso]

Most people trust ABC more than NFP, because they have no experience with NFP. The reason for this is due to the fact that information about contraception has been drilled into us since childhood. Also, the parents are often silent on the subject, or worse, they are in favor of “sex education” which amounts to a completely biased presentation which basically encourages early sexual experiences before marriage. Leaving the education of children on such an important matter to the school sex-ed program is completely irresponsible, but parents go along with this because it validates the immoral behaviors in their own marriages, so this is the vicious cycle of ignorance that is perpetuated.

Perhaps in some cases this is true. But what about people who have experienced both and find themselves trusting ABC more? I think a lot of people go along with letting the schools teach their kids about sex simply because they are not comfortable talking to their kids about it themselves.

 

[Seatuck]

Oh dear. This is SO NOT DIFFICULT to understand. NFP is indeed a “deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse”, PERIOD! And will you people please STOP setting up this strawman argument that sex during infertile phases is permitted? NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT! What we are arguing is that sex, when timed specifically in order to avoid pregnancy using highly sophisticated and accurate scientific techniques, WOULD HAVE BEEN illicit in the early Church! This IS a contraceptive practice. One wishes to have sex, and employs scientific knowledge, measurements and techniques in order to AVOID CONCEPTION! This is the very definition of CONTRA(against)CEPTION(conception).

Seriously, STOP. Please. It is simple English derived from Latin. STOP TWISTING IT!

This is absurd. Contraception does something in the presence of the sexual act. When you abstain there is no sexual act. Having sex during an infertile time does nothing to the sacramental or physical nature of that particular act. .

 

[LaSainte]

1.*(n.)*contraception
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

How about the etymology of the word CONTRACEPTION, PLUS a definition from the English learner’s dictionary, PLUS the definition from the U.S. National Library of Medicine?

Etymology: *(1885–90; contra -1+ (con )ception)

Kernerman English Learner’s Dictionary*

1.*(noun)*contraception
methods of preventing pregnancy

Definition of ‘contraception’ U.S. National Library of Medicine*

1.**contraception
Prevention of CONCEPTION by blocking fertility temporarily, or permanently (STERILIZATION, REPRODUCTIVE). Common means of reversible contraception include NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING METHODS; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS; or CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES

 

[LaSainte]

So can we put this to rest? You have the assurance of several dictionaries, the interpretation of a linguist and a definition from a reputable medical dictionary. NFP IS CONTRACEPTION, period.

 

[Calliso]

1.*(n.)*contraception
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

How about the etymology of the word CONTRACEPTION, PLUS a definition from the English learner’s dictionary, PLUS the definition from the U.S. National Library of Medicine?

Etymology: *(1885–90; contra -1+ (con )ception)

Kernerman English Learner’s Dictionary*

1.*(noun)*contraception
methods of preventing pregnancy

Definition of ‘contraception’ U.S. National Library of Medicine*

1.**contraception
Prevention of CONCEPTION by blocking fertility temporarily, or permanently (STERILIZATION, REPRODUCTIVE). Common means of reversible contraception include NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING METHODS; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS; or CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES

Hmm techiques certainly sounds like NFP to me! Really though I agree with you people can argue otherwise all they want but NFP is a form of contraception.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So can we put this to rest? You have the assurance of several dictionaries, the interpretation of a linguist and a definition from a reputable medical dictionary. NFP IS CONTRACEPTION, period.

No.

1.**contraception
Prevention of CONCEPTION by blocking fertility temporarily, or permanently (STERILIZATION, REPRODUCTIVE). Common means of reversible contraception include NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING METHODS; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS; or CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES

NFP does not block fertility in the least (not temporarily not permanently) so it does not make sense to segue that NFP is a “reversable contraceptive”.

It isn’t a contraceptive.

 

[Calliso]

Sacredcello, how can you honestly believe that the only reason that one might find NFP to be harmful to their relationship would be if they are somehow depraved and obsessed with sex-“secularized” as you put it?

Did it even cross your mind that there are people like my grandmother who have more faith in their little fingers than most people will ever know, who have attended daily mass for over 50 years, who pray the rosary everyday, and yet still found NFP to be a burden on their lives and marriages? My grandmother had one ovary that ovulated on one day and then another that ovulated 2 weeks later. She was literally either fertile or menstruating ALL THE TIME, and was often fertile WHILE menstruating. There was no safe window for her. She had 8 kids, whom she cared for all day, went to sleep the minute her husband got home from work (after cooking dinner for 10 of course), woke up 4 hours later, worked at a factory for 8 hours, attended morning mass on her way home and made it home in time to start cooking breakfast and packing lunches for 10 people. This she did for years, and they were still flat broke (we’re talking, the kids got a pair of new shoes and a pair of jeans that she ha made them for Christmas and that was it broke). Do you think she was just “secularized”? Is that why she didn’t see NFP as such an amazing blessing?

Yeah I really hate the idea too that if one doesn;t think NFP is/was just great for their marriage and worse that it actually harmed it then they must just be obsessed with sex or secularized. Your example with your Grandmother clearly shows that isn;t always the case. People can be devout Catholics full of faith and NFP could still be rough and damaging to their marriages! Seriously though painting people in a bad light because they dare suggest NFP isnt; always sunshine and rainbows and can cause problems isn;t really fair.

 

[Calliso]

No.

NFP does not block fertility in the least (not temporarily not permanently) so it does not make sense to segue that NFP is a “reversable contraceptive”.

It isn’t a contraceptive.

Yes but then it goes on to list Natural family planning as a contraceptive method!

 

[LaSainte]

No.

NFP does not block fertility in the least (not temporarily not permanently) so it does not make sense to segue that NFP is a “reversable contraceptive”.

It isn’t a contraceptive.

I’m sorry, but it is a medical dictionary, written by doctors, and now you are just making this whole thing rather embarrassing for yourself and everyone who has to read your denials of the truth in the face of concrete evidence from several unrelated sources.

 

[Chrono13]

Yes, I understand that laypeople should be invited to the table. No problem there. The red flag for me is this idea that “NFP is damaging” their relationship. This is an extremely secular viewpoint. It doesn’t matter that they attend Mass every week and do various good deeds, etc. If their hearts are so inclined to reject the values of the Gospel in their marriage, as evidenced by their opinion that the virtue of chastity (or lack thereof) was harming their marriage, then their consciences have not been properly formed.

“It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless” (Jn 6:63).

They were not asked to provide traditional or secular viewpoint. They were asked to share their own experience with the technique. Their answer was not an answer of anything less then Roman Catholic Church, communicating the everyday life.

If NFP, in most cases, damages marriage, those who suffer this damage have right to report this to superior sources, such as bishop or priest.

And, how was it that these people were claiming that NFP was damaging to their relationship? What did they have to compare it to? Were they using ABC before the commission, but, for the purpose of the commission, decided to practice NFP in order to give their opinion? If so, isn’t it obvious that there would be “damage”, as in, the requirement of developing virtue that they had no experience with in the past?

Since more then hundred couples were giving testimonies to commission, I can’t speak too generally. What can be certain is that these people were experienced in NFP, and how it reflected their relationship.

Take in mind, if NFP is damaging marriage, that doesn’t mean contraception is good. We simply have to accept challenges our Church has.

 

[Chrono13]

Whenever you quote something, you should always provide a link or at least name a source.

That said, I am aware of that quote and it’s been impossible for me to get the full context of it because every translation of The Instructor leaves the chapter where that quote is from almost entirely in Latin. But what remains to be said is that most Fathers, as far as I know, say absolutely nothing about the topic. I think that is reasonable grounds to consider it was not an important held belief at the time.

I simply disagree. Church Fathers wrote quite a lot about procreation as the only moral nature of intercourse, and this anti-sexual system was mainstream until 19th Century. No document prior to Casti Connubii said sexuality was unitive. And there is a reason why.

In the Middle Ages St. Thomas Aquinas among other theologians taught that it was okay for couples that were infertile to have intercourse. Is that not vainly waisting the seed, since as you say the Fathers said sex is only for procreation? Granted, St. Thomas had a far better understanding of the Fathers than you or I and he seems to arrive at a different opinion than the one you claim the Fathers held. I think it is probably correct to say that the position was NOT considered de fide.

That infertile couples can have sex was not an issue to St. Augustine, since he introduced the idea of “marital debt”. This was still irregular intercourse, but tolerated, on account of marriage.

True, he says its faulty and without restraint, but my point was that you are making a distinction that he does not. I am sure that if St. Gregory actually intended that, he probably would have said so. Consequently, the phrase “avoid lapse into sin” should be simply read for what it says. The couple avoid lapse into sin

What distinction he makes between a couple who has sex only for begetting, and those who don’t? Why is the latter irregular and on what base is regularity formed?

 

[Warrior1979]

It has been difficult to read your posts because of the level of misinformation you have. But, many are fairly common myths that repeat and expand with each generation. Contraception is the *act of breaking *a procreative design. Choosing not to act on fertility does nothing.

True…but that is not the point people are addressing.

There is no act to break. I understand that you just don’t get this right now. To be contra- anything, an *act *must be taking place.

There is not act in abstinence. However, there is an act when have relations during the infertile period, which is what the point of discussion is about.

Please, please listen to our late Holy Fathers (and our current Holy Father). They really do have infallibility since this is a topic of both faith *and *morals.

The late and current Holy Fathers recognize that there is an issue with having relations with during the infertile period, as demonstrated by the conditions placed upon using NFP. I assume that you understand this, since you are using them as your source.

 

[sacredcello]

So can we put this to rest? You have the assurance of several dictionaries, the interpretation of a linguist and a definition from a reputable medical dictionary. NFP IS CONTRACEPTION, period.

Please stop shouting. Anger does not help to prove your point.

LaSainte, I understand how much you want to prove to yourself and to others that it is licit to use barriers/pills/surgeries. You mentioned over in another thread that you seriously considered having your tubes tied because you don’t want any more children. You said you want to travel, get your PhD, enjoy a glass of wine leisurely, etc. and that more children get in the way of these goals. I totally understand and my heart goes out to you, and I think many women can understand the goals you have for your life. However, NFP is not and will never be a form of contraception. If you wish to space your children or even to postpone indefinitely and perhaps permanently (since you already have one and are expecting #2 right now), the only moral means to do so is by periodic continence, otherwise known as NFP. Or, there is total abstinence, but I am not suggesting this, because I see no reason why NFP couldn’t be an easy, safe and effective method for you. It is not, however, contraception.

Instead of digging your heels in further by fighting with good people here at CAF who are only trying to help, why not finish reading the Theology of the Body, especially the later talks, wherein Blessed John Paul II describes the virtue of chastity in light of the Gospel, and its place at the center of marriage? Also, since you have expressed an interest in getting your PhD, why not, in the meantime, lean on the Holy Fathers a bit and try to open your heart and mind to their writings. Pope Pius XI, Pope Paul VI and Blessed John Paul II were all accomplished scholars. Their words are very important to us as Catholics. Please consider them more carefully. Read them a 2nd or 3rd time. My husband is a PhD in modern philosophy and he has read Humanae Vitae approximately 25 times!! He still has problems with it, but it has not stopped him from submitting his heart and mind to practicing NFP in our marriage. He is a good husband. I can honestly say that this would not be so if he chose to ditch Church teaching and use ABC. Sure, there have been days where it wasn’t easy, but now we look back and wish we had not abstained, as we are now struggling with infertility. Life is so short and precious. Why waste it by fighting against the truths of Holy Mother Church?

 

[LaSainte]

Yeah I really hate the idea too that if one doesn;t think NFP is/was just great for their marriage and worse that it actually harmed it then they must just be obsessed with sex or secularized. Your example with your Grandmother clearly shows that isn;t always the case. People can be devout Catholics full of faith and NFP could still be rough and damaging to their marriages! Seriously though painting people in a bad light because they dare suggest NFP isnt; always sunshine and rainbows and can cause problems isn;t really fair.

Yes. And this is what I find to be so frustrating about trying to dialogue with so many pro-NFPers. I WANT to believe in this. I HAVE to follow it anyway if I ever want to receive communion again, so I’m on board. But when you have people who flat-out deny simple points like the medical and linguistic definition of the word “contraception”, or people are claiming that if NFP isn’t the best thing that ever happened to your marriage, then there’s something wrong with YOU, or that if NFP never worked for you and you ended up with 8 kids hen you were either doing it wrong or had a ****** doctor who didn’t know his behind from a whole in the ground, or you have people completely denying the history of Church teaching on marital sexuality, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere and it makes heir argument one giant Clintonian denial of the facts that are there in front of them. Deny, deny, deny.

Such arguments actually serve to weaken their whole platform, but no-one here wants to concede even a single point. Wouldn’t it be better and more productive to say “Well o.k., maybe technically, NFP is contraceptive, but that doesn’t make it morally equivalent to other forms of contraceptive”, or “Well, no matter how devout one is, NFP might not be good for everyone’s marriage 100% of the time”, or even “Well medically, NFP just doesn’t work for everyone”, or “Well yes, it DOES seem that Augustine and many of the early Fathers would not necessarily have endorsed NFP”?

At least THEN we could move on and have a reasonable discussion as to the practicality and moral relevance of NFP today, and try to overcome some of the difficulties some of us have with the teaching. As it stands though, a true constructive dialogue is damned near impossible.