NFP and contraception

[Warrior1979]

Why waste it by fighting against the truths of Holy Mother Church?

Not everybody is “fighting against the truths.” Maybe they’re just trying to understand them and the Church has not provided sufficient information.

There are things that I simply cannot reconcile. Example: Implicit in the Church’s position on NFP is acceptance of a statistically greater amount of miscarriages (or abortions, as defined by some on this forum)…a small amount, but greater, nevertheless. I think it is probable that the Church didn’t know this when regulating cycles via NFP was “clarified.” I also think they might have ruled differently if they knew this. Of course, there is now way they can change that position now, because it would be an admittance of being wrong on an infallible position.

 

[sacredcello]

The other argument has been a misuse of the so-called “commission of contraception and NFP.” It isn’t being represented correctly by those using it to bolster an idea contrary to Catholic teaching. The commission was to determine** if** the* newly invented hormonal contraception* (The Pill) was ***equal ***to NFP. That was the one and only purpose. The question that was being researched was, “does the Pill create a naturally infertile environment so it could be accepted on the same grounds as periodic continence?” The answer was no. The Pill was still an attempt to thwart the natural design, so even if it “felt like NBR only easier,” as many people described, it was not a moral method for spacing birth.

I am actually pretty shocked at how badly the Commission is being misrepresented here. It does not bolster your argument to misuse your source when there are those of us who can resource people who were alive and having babies when these points in history were taking place. My mother had a 4 day old baby when Humanae Vitae came out in 1968. Yes, everyone thought that the ban on contraception would be lifted, including my mother. My parents had been using NFP already, just like their relatives had during the 40s and in each generation before. They were not looking for an approval of NFP. They were looking for an approval of the Pill.

LittleDeb,

Thank you for this background information on the Commission. It seems that those who are referencing it, are trying to make it sound as if the purpose of the Commission was to take a vote on how NFP feels to married couples, instead of the much weightier question that they were actually studying which you describe: “*does the Pill create a naturally infertile environment so it could be accepted on the same grounds as periodic continence?” *

 

[LaSainte]

Sacredcello, please do not mistake my stressing certain words as anger. That is most certainly not my feeling or intent. Trust me, I am doing my fair share of reading in between all the cooking and cleaning and taking care of a toddler (as much as I can before I pass out from exhaustion anyway!) and my search for understanding is far from over. I am also not seeing to justify the use of ABC to myself. I know my limits for now as a mother and a wife and I know how far (give or take) my obedience can go on this issue. Maybe that will change, maybe not. Maybe someday I will laugh in the face of a 6th c-section and ruptured uterus and leaving my kids without a mother because I don’t want to use a condom, but that day is not today, and thankfully, it doesn’t have to be. Who knows what the future holds but God Himself. We make plans and He Laughs, as they say.

 

[LaSainte]

Not everybody is “fighting against the truths.” Maybe they’re just trying to understand them and the Church has not provided sufficient information.

There are things that I simply cannot reconcile. Example: Implicit in the Church’s position on NFP is acceptance of a statistically greater amount of miscarriages (or abortions, as defined by some on this forum)…a small amount, but greater, nevertheless. I think it is probable that the Church didn’t know this when regulating cycles via NFP was “clarified.” I also think they might have ruled differently if they knew this. Of course, there is now way they can change that position now, because it would be an admittance of being wrong on an infallible position.

I’ve wondered about this myself.

 

[sacredcello]

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.

This is quite right, LittleDeb. When double ovulation occurs (as in the case of fraternal twins), it happens within 12-24 hours of the first ovulation. Doctors at the time may not have been aware of it. The double mucus patch which you describe may also be a result of PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome), but this may not have been the case with LaSainte’s grandmother because many people with PCOS are also infertile. In any case, it is impossible for a woman to be fertile the entire month or to ovulate twice more than a week from the first ovulation.

Another wonderful health benefit that LaSainte’s grandmother experienced by having a large family is a greatly reduced risk of breast cancer. Breastfeeding many children, especially if the pregnancies begin before age 30, has been shown to protect a woman from breast cancer.

 

[sacredcello]

Not everybody is “fighting against the truths.” Maybe they’re just trying to understand them and the Church has not provided sufficient information.

There are things that I simply cannot reconcile. Example: Implicit in the Church’s position on NFP is acceptance of a statistically greater amount of miscarriages (or abortions, as defined by some on this forum)…a small amount, but greater, nevertheless. I think it is probable that the Church didn’t know this when regulating cycles via NFP was “clarified.” I also think they might have ruled differently if they knew this. Of course, there is now way they can change that position now, because it would be an admittance of being wrong on an infallible position.

I don’t understand what you are saying, can you clarify? How does the Church’s position on NFP mean an implicit acceptance of greater amount of miscarriages? Are you referring to the pre-menopause time when pregnancies have a greater chance of ending in miscarriage? If so, how does NFP figure in? I am not at all trying to be flippant, I just don’t understand your point. There are NaPro Technology doctors all over the country who have followed the lead of Dr. Hilgers in successfully treating repeat miscarriages, even for “older” mothers. Nevertheless, it is true that older mothers have a greater risk (I am in that category myself )…but, how does NFP mean “greater number of miscarriages”? If a woman seeks medical care, but still finds that she is at the stage in life where she is not likely to carry a baby to term, NFP can only help a couple to avoid conception, so they can avoid the agony of repeat miscarriage. Right? Or, is there something that I am missing?

 

[Chrono13]

His point in quoting Augustine is that we should avoid using worldly things (intercourse included) in such a way that will cause excessive attachment and that we are unable to turn to serve God quickly. The quote does not address how intercourse ought to be used. The use could equally be said to be bonding.

This is simply not true. He pointed out that sexuality should be practiced according to it’s augustinian use, and not for enjoyment. Since the only use Augustine sees in sex is procreation, there is no ground for “excessive attachment” argument.

That said, this does not address or even contradict the quote that was being previously discussed where St. Francis de Sales *explicitly * states that intercourse, even when procreation is not expected does not cease to be good provided that it is done in a way where procreation would result if it were not for the infertile circumstances. And the reason, I believe (I may be wrong), that you avoid discussing it is because it clearly betrays a perspective that supports (or would support) NFP contrary to your premise.

It doesn’t seem so from the given quote. The act itself is good, but it must be taken with it’s use in mind- not for enjoyment. Since use is procreation, practicing NFP is attempt to provide enjoyment without usage- and as such, is contrary to logic and morality.

Also, this would be a good time to stress what “infertile” was to theologians of the past. It was what we could describe as “barren” ie. permanently infertile because of sickness or age. A woman in her infertile period of natural cycle is not barren, but fruitful according to this logic.

This is important because when Augustine, or Thomas, approve sex without chance of begetting, they don’t see cycle as something defining woman’s infertility. Accidents define it, and menstrual cycle is not an accident.

 

[Chrono13]

The council clearly says that using medicine to prevent conception is wrong. It says nothing of other things. It matters little what they would have said. It only matters what they actually said. That is how the grace of infallibility works.

Is “medicine” a tool, or “art” in Trent’s canon? If later is the case, NFP is forbidden, since it is medical solution.

 

[sacredcello]

Sacredcello, please do not mistake my stressing certain words as anger.

Using capital letters repeatedly is universally interpreted as shouting. And, you told Mary Gail that she was playing dumb. This was extremely insulting. Her posts have all been intelligent and well thought out and enlightening. I can only hope that you said these things in a moment of rash judgment and anger and that you did not mean them.

 

[sacredcello]

Maybe someday I will laugh in the face of a 6th c-section and ruptured uterus and leaving my kids without a mother because I don’t want to use a condom,.

Responsible parenthood is very much at the core of the practice of NFP. I have never met anyone in the NFP community who would advocate that you risk leaving your children without a mother.

In terms of method effectiveness, the condom is far inferior for avoiding pregnancy than NFP. I have the condom to thank for the existence of my younger brother and sister.

 

[LaSainte]

This is quite right, LittleDeb. When double ovulation occurs (as in the case of fraternal twins), it happens within 12-24 hours of the first ovulation. Doctors at the time may not have been aware of it. The double mucus patch which you describe may also be a result of PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome), but this may not have been the case with LaSainte’s grandmother because many people with PCOS are also infertile. In any case, it is impossible for a woman to be fertile the entire month or to ovulate twice more than a week from the first ovulation.

Another wonderful health benefit that LaSainte’s grandmother experienced by having a large family is a greatly reduced risk of breast cancer. Breastfeeding many children, especially if the pregnancies begin before age 30, has been shown to protect a woman from breast cancer.

Wrong again. Please see my post about women who ovulate twice a month and see the accompanying medical journal article about the Canadian study done which found his to be true if you wish. Ignoring medical evidence does not make your position any stronger.

 

[sacredcello]

Is “medicine” a tool, or “art” in Trent’s canon? If later is the case, NFP is forbidden, since it is medical solution.

NFP has never been forbidden. There may have been an awareness of infertile days in the woman’s cycle during the time of the Council of Trent. But, it could not have been called an art because the awareness of the infertile phases was so vague, that it could not have been described as such. Can you show me any book from that time period in which the rules of NFP were described with any degree of accuracy?

The virtue of chastity has never been forbidden.

 

[LaSainte]

Using capital letters repeatedly is universally interpreted as shouting. And, you told Mary Gail that she was playing dumb. This was extremely insulting. Her posts have all been intelligent and well thought out and enlightening. I can only hope that you said these things in a moment of rash judgment and anger and that you did not mean them.

Caps are generally interpreted as emphasis when used sparingly word by word. When whole sentences are capitalized, that is “yelling”. And yes, I said Mary Gail was playing dumb because I know she is far more intelligent than to discount completely the definitions contained in dictionaries, reaffirmed by a linguist, and then REconfirmed by a medical dictionary. Printed evidence from more than 3 separate credible sources as to the definition of contraception would not simply be thrown out by someone as smart and eloquent as Mary Gail.

 

[LaSainte]

Responsible parenthood is very much at the core of the practice of NFP. I have never met anyone in the NFP community who would advocate that you risk leaving your children without a mother.

In terms of method effectiveness, the condom is far inferior for avoiding pregnancy than NFP. I have the condom to thank for the existence of my younger brother and sister.

Honestly, if I was going to die if I got pregnant again at this point, I would most likely have a hysterectomy. 100% effective

 

[Chrono13]

The shock was not that NFP was allowed, it was that everyone expected the Church to lift the ban on contraception. It was widely talked about for nearly a decade with many theologians speculating that the Church would change and priests were advising couples to “use their conscience” which was a euphemism for “go ahead and use ABC.” Then, when Humanae Vitae was published, it received scorn from Catholics and non-Catholics around the globe.

But you had traditional criticism which stressed that NFP was forbidden in the past, and it still exists today. These people were also shocked when they read Humanae Vitae.

You also had honest secular intellectuals who wanted to learn more about Pope’s opinion on the subject. They were not thrilled with “his” avoidance of hot potatoes ,namely the fact sex was allowed only for procreation in the past to Catholic layman.

Pope Paul VI was deeply hurt by this reaction and he didn’t publish again for quite some time. My heart breaks at how alone he must have felt and rejected. This man is very dear to me. His courage and conviction to speak the truth is heroic.

No wish to attack him, but if he was so heroic, why he didn’t publish anything “for quite a long time”? Was it because he felt lonely? Would issuing explanations to questions which rose made him more happy? I don’t actually think so, but it was his duty.

Maybe something else is in question. His boycott of stoic tradition gave modernists and critics huge upper hand in the middle of sexual revolution. I don’t think he is coward. You had conservatives attacking his encyclical from one side, modernists from the other, layman wanting good fertility technique, historians wanting more objective approach to Church history… it was a special situation. But it seems we are all now in his position, somehow at the side, hoping soon all this noise will end.

 

[LaSainte]

NFP has never been forbidden. There may have been an awareness of infertile days in the woman’s cycle during the time of the Council of Trent. But, it could not have been called an art because the awareness of the infertile phases was so vague, that it could not have been described as such. Can you show me any book from that time period in which the rules of NFP were described with any degree of accuracy?

The virtue of chastity has never been forbidden.

Equating NFP with the virtue of chastity is like equating the pill with the virtue of always being available to one’s spouse to fulfill the marital debt as per the instructions of St. Paul. I’m sure you can see the humor in that

 

[samiam1611]

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.

Ok I have a question. Those of you who use NFP but don’t want to or who are abstinent, is the main (only?) reason you still use it is so you can receive communion?

 

[Chrono13]

False. Even the Council of Trent taught: “If anyone says, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.” (Canon 8)
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM

Also shows continual ignorance of Casti Connubii, 1930, and inattention to the given facts.
The Holy See teaches that “serious motives,” and “proportionately serious reasons,” are needed in order to use NFP to avoid, or to decrease the likelihood of, conception.

What were the causes canon 8 regards worthy of separation in bed and in cohabitation? Grave reasons of Humanae Vitae?

As for Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae, I repeat my stance again. We are not talking about their points, but how their points reflect the writings of tradition.

 

[sacredcello]

Equating NFP with the virtue of chastity is like equating the pill with the virtue of always being available to one’s spouse to fulfill the marital debt as per the instructions of St. Paul. I’m sure you can see the humor in that

No, I don’t see the humor because the Pill is an abortifacient and is immoral on many different levels.

 

[Chrono13]

Well, we are still off and running! I keep seeing the argument brought up that, “NFP wasn’t explicitly allowed until around 1858, so Church teaching has changed.” Please know that with that argument you are seeking to undermine the dogma of the Immaculate Conception too.

Not really. You draw this argument only because you don’t have anything better. I am not falling for it. After all, Immaculate Conception is a dogma, while contraception is not, and questioning the latter is not countering the first.

The other argument has been a misuse of the so-called “commission of contraception and NFP.” It isn’t being represented correctly by those using it to bolster an idea contrary to Catholic teaching. The commission was to determine** if** the* newly invented hormonal contraception* (The Pill) was ***equal ***to NFP. That was the one and only purpose.

Which, in start, was quite a puzzling question. For untold centuries have Catholics forbid potions and medicines which were used to avoid conception. Now a new drug was invented and they had to ask is it allowed? Why?