NFP and contraception

[sacredcello]

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.

And the linguist whom you have provided to interpret these definitions is YOURSELF!!!

Mary Gail did not discount the dictionary entries, it was YOUR interpretation of them which she discounted and I agree with her completely.

 

[LaSainte]

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

Actually it has never be documentedthat the pill causes abortions…it is a hypothetical claim. That being said, I would never use the pill just in case just because even the possibility is too much to bear, and should be for anyone who is pro life.

 

[sacredcello]

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 prohibition of contraception is most certainly an infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium. Whereas, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared by Pope Pius IX in 1954 and falls under the conditions of Papal Infallibility.

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?

That is the whole point! Pope Paul VI and Blessed John Paul II and many other holy members of the Commission without a doubt knew that the Pill was immoral, but look at the times under which they were living! The public was crying out for immoral methods to be declared licit. It was an age of sex, drugs and rock n roll. If they didn’t form a Commission to study it, the Church would have been further marginalized by the culture and comments like “out of tough with reality” would have been written in every major newspaper. The journalists did that anyway, but at least the Church did her best to respond to the times, yet to proclaim the truth consistently.

 

[sacredcello]

Actually it has never be documentedthat the pill causes abortions…it is a hypothetical claim. That being said, I would never use the pill just in case just because even the possibility is too much to bear, and should be for anyone who is pro life.

This information is included in the fine print of every box of Pills. Many women have reported terrible and unexplainable grief after having been on the Pill, only to find out later that the Pill often works in this manner and they likely aborted their own children without realizing it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf

ORAL CONTRACEPTION
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the
primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include
changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

From the insert of Orthotricyclen, a popular brand of the Pill.

 

[sacredcello]

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.

You did not provide a link for that article, but I looked it up. Is this what you mean?

fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2803%2900544-2/abstract

This is a very rough hypothesis based on a very small study of 50 women and it in no way proves that ovulation happens during two distinct times in a woman’s cycle. This is a study of follicular development. That is very different than ovulation. Double ovulation does happen, and we have fraternal twins as evidence, but it has been shown to take place within 12 - 24 hours.

Nice try.

 

[Chrono13]

Now, this “what is contraception?” debate going on… Few things need to be understood.

There are few definitions of this practice, as each comes from different view. We should take them in consideration.

1. SECULAR INTERPRETATION
   This is what most use people today, and is generally used by medical science. Every act or mean which is preformed in order to avoid conception, and has such effect, is contraceptive. NFP is included, since it’s primary goal is avoiding conception. This interpretation is not concerned with details of the act itself. If something made your family smaller, it is because it was contraceptive in nature.
2. STOIC INTERPRETATION (“TRADITIONAL”)
   Used by Church up to 19th Century. Connected with teaching that sex is only for procreation. Because of this arbiter, only valid intercourse is for begetting children. Since the only moral couple is the one wanting child during intercourse, those who use anything to bypass this outcome are using contraception. NFP is also included, because it certainly isn’t used by couple who intends to beget a child.
3. “CONSERVATIVE” INTERPRETATION
   Modern interpretation of Catholic Church, connected with “openness to life of act” as moral arbiter. It observes what is done to act itself in order to control the outcome. By this interpretation, every act has the possibility of begetting. But if begetting does not happen because of direct action on act itself (as in case with condom) it is morally unacceptable. NFP, however, is not contraception, because it doesn’t touch the act itself. The direct action is done somewhere else- namely, in abstinence during fertile periods.

So, in one part, you are all right. However, each of these interpretations have their advantages and disadvantages, those of theological nature are most interesting.

 

[LaSainte]

This information is included in the fine print of every box of Pills. Many women have reported terrible and unexplainable grief after having been on the Pill, only to find out later that the Pill often works in this manner and they likely aborted their own children without realizing it.

Yes,it is on the box as a hypothetical possibility. It has never been proven, but is a CYA by the pill developers. If you read the box of any medication you take, you will likewise see horrible possible side-effects that have never actually been observed in practice or clinical trials.

 

[Chrono13]

The prohibition of contraception is most certainly an infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium. Whereas, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared by Pope Pius IX in 1954 and falls under the conditions of Papal Infallibility.

It is difficult to claim contraception ban is part of Universal Magisterium since bishops of the past forbid it on entirely different logic and model of natural law.

That is the whole point! Pope Paul VI and Blessed John Paul II and many other holy members of the Commission without a doubt knew that the Pill was immoral, but look at the times under which they were living! The public was crying out for immoral methods to be declared licit. It was an age of sex, drugs and rock n roll. If they didn’t form a Commission to study it, the Church would have been further marginalized by the culture and comments like “out of tough with reality” would have been written in every major newspaper. The journalists did that anyway, but at least the Church did her best to respond to the times, yet to proclaim the truth consistently.

Huh? They knew pill was immoral, but formed a commission in order to avoid marginalization in culture?

 

[LaSainte]

You did not provide a link for that article, but I looked it up. Is this what you mean?

fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2803%2900544-2/abstract

This is a very rough hypothesis based on a very small study of 50 women and it in no way proves that ovulation happens during two distinct times in a woman’s cycle. This is a study of follicular development. That is very different than ovulation. Double ovulation does happen, and we have fraternal twins as evidence, but it has been shown to take place within 12 - 24 hours.

Nice try.

Same study, but this article does a better job of explaining the results in laymen’s terms and what follicular development means regarding ovulation.
newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn3927-women-can-ovulate-more-than-once-a-month.html

 

[Calliso]

So people use contraception just to be evil? If NFP is the safe, easy, and effective method, you have to at least give one good reason why people don’t use it. Perhaps it’s not that safe, easy, or effective? Or perhaps people have special circumstances?

Well I can;t see how NFP would not be safe. But yes for some it may be too hard or not effective enough for them. How difficult it is does seem to depend on the method and the person. I mean if all you have to do is take your temperature and make a chart of it and NFP still works for you. Well that is easy. But I have heard stories of people having to go through a lot of trouble just to get a somewhat confident answer and even then they are not sure. With artificial contraception methods there isn;t quite the stress involved either wondering if you read your signs right or whatever,.

 

[Warrior1979]

I don’t understand what you are saying, can you clarify?

You actually clarified it in a later post in this thread:

This information is included in the fine print of every box of Pills. Many women have reported terrible and unexplainable grief after having been on the Pill, only to find out later that the Pill often works in this manner and they likely aborted their own children without realizing it.

In the case of being on the pill, or having relations during the infertile period, conception can occur, but pregnancy might not. Statistically off cycle conception has a higher miscarriage/abortion rate. Same result, different means.

I really don’t think the Church knew this when taking an infallible position. If they did, I’d like to see the source.

 

[sacredcello]

Same study, but this article does a better job of explaining the results in laymen’s terms and what follicular development means regarding ovulation.
newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn3927-women-can-ovulate-more-than-once-a-month.html

Neither article makes any mention of the amount of time between ovulations. So, a claim that your grandmother was “fertile all month long” based on this study of follicular waves is questionable at best.

This article explains follicular waves in more depth and incorporates the study you cited:

Research spearheaded by Baerwald et al. suggests that the menstrual cycle may not regulate follicular growth as strictly as previously thought. In particular, the majority of women during an average twenty-eight day cycle experience two or three “waves” of follicular development, with only the final wave being ovulatory. The remainder of the waves are anovulatory, characterized by the developed preovulatory follicle falling into atresia (a major anovulatory cycle) or no preovulatory follicle being chosen at all (a minor anovulatory cycle).

The phenomenon is similar to the follicular waves seen in cows and horses. In these animals, a large cohort of early tertiary follicles develop consistently during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, suggesting that the endocrine system does not regulate folliculogenesis stringently. Researchers of fertility awareness or natural family planning methods discovered follicular waves in the 1950s. These methods of family planning have always taken multiple follicular waves into account, and this research does not challenge their effectiveness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovulation

 

[sacredcello]

Huh? They knew pill was immoral, but formed a commission in order to avoid marginalization in culture?

The Church needed to respond to the uproar. Many were claiming that the Church was rejecting “science” by continuing to forbid contraception. The specifics needed to be studied in order to give a fuller explanation given by many different theologians in response to the widespread dissent. There were problems of poverty in third world nations that needed consideration. Mother Teresa was already hard at work since 1967 (during the time of the commission) teaching couples who could not read or write to chart their cycles using the sympto-thermal method with great success.

Yes, I believe “all men of good will” (to whom the encyclical of Humanae Vitae is addressed), can see from the outset that the Pill is immoral.

 

[sacredcello]

In the case of being on the pill, or having relations during the infertile period, conception can occur, but pregnancy might not. Statistically off cycle conception has a higher miscarriage/abortion rate. Same result, different means.

I really don’t think the Church knew this when taking an infallible position. If they did, I’d like to see the source.

I am honestly trying, but I still do not understand what point you are making. Are you saying that there was a general lack of awareness at the time that women have early miscarriages? Even if this were the case, that the members of the Commission were unaware of naturally occurring early miscarriages, how is it even relevant? What is your point?

NaPro physicians have a very high success in treating repeat miscarriages. The Pope Paul VI Institute for the study of Human Reproduction, by the way, is where the the science of NaPro Technology was developed.

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

He never said that. Granted, in the quote, the specific “use” of intercourse is never specified. And if I were to interpret the quote in the way you are, that means that any material thing (that is what the quote is addressing) cannot be enjoyed at all. That means that video games, for example, are only meant to be used not enjoyed. But that doesn’t make any sense. The very use of video games is for enjoyment and they are certainly not a spiritual thing. In that case, the Augustinian quote cautions against an excessive attachment (enjoyment?) of any worldly thing to such a degree that we would forgo heavenly things. This appears to be the only way the quote would make sense, especially considering cases where the use and enjoyment of a thing are not separate. I don’t see how one could use and not enjoy an ice cream cone. De Sales clarifies the context in which invokes the quote: “Let everyone use this world according to his calling, but in such manner that he does not engage his affection in it and remains as free and ready to serve God as if he did not use it.” If we were to follow your interpretation of the quote, to take pleasure in anything nonspiritual (video games, ice cream, conversation, etc.) would be evil. Fortunately the Fathers, even in their sophism, do not takes such a view and neither does de Sales.

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.

I think the meaning of the quote is beyond debate. I will post it hear again in a more convenient translation:

“The procreation of children is the first and principal end of marriage. Hence no one may ever lawfully depart from the due order that that end requires. This holds even at times when conception cannot take place because of some condition or circumstance as happens when sterility or pregnancy prevents it.
In these occurrences corporal commerce does not cease to be just and holy, provided the rules of generation are followed. No accidental condition whatsoever can injure the law that the principal end of marriage has imposed.”

St. Francis de Sales, while acknowledging procreation as the first end of marriage, explicitly says that even at times when conception cannot take place, “corporal commerce” (intercourse) does not cease to be holy. Clearly a woman who is pregnant is temporarily unable to procreate. St. Francis knew this. But he insists that even at that time intercourse is not sinful.

On a final note, your understanding of the word “accident” is mistaken in this case. “Accident” as used by St. Thomas Aquinas does not share the common meaning, rather it is a scholastic term that describes circumstances as opposed to the term “substance” which speaks of essence. To use St. Thomas Aquinas’ example, sexual relations between two people of the same sex is essentially infertile (that is, by its very nature, by substance). Sexual relations between an infertile man and woman is infertile by accident, that is due to particular circumstances. In the above translation, St. Francis de Sales refers to pregnancy and barreness as “accidental conditions”. It clearly shows Thomistic influence. Accidental, here also, refers to a circumstance.

Infertile periods can also be understood as accidental conditions.

 

[Image_of_God]

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

You are using an extraordinarily broad definition of the term medicine. NFP does not use medicine to impede or obstruct conception. As someone said, it is the abstinence during fertile days that prevents conception, only abstinence. That is not the case in other methods. In the use of birth control pills, it is quite clearly the pill that’s preventing conception.

Some people use pills to lose weight. Others rightly prefer to lose weight the long and hard way. They might still have recourse to balances and calorie-counting gadgets. In the former, medicine is being used to lose weight. In the latter case, medicine is NOT the cause of weight loss, even if you could say in a very general way that medical technology was being used to help lose weight.

 

[Warrior1979]

I am honestly trying, but I still do not understand what point you are making. Are you saying that there was a general lack of awareness at the time that women have early miscarriages? Even if this were the case, that the members of the Commission were unaware of naturally occurring early miscarriages, how is it even relevant? What is your point?

You completely missing my point. Ovulation can occur, by accident, when one has marital relations during an infertile cycle when practicing NFP. The fertilized egg has a statistically higher chance of not implanting when this occurs. It is similar to what happens when one is on the pill.

Having relations only during the infertile time means increasing the possibility of this occurring. The Church is obviously aware of this at this point in time, since research provided by pro-life, Catholic doctors dealing with various reproductive issues cited on this forum actually includes this information.

The result is that a higher number of miscarriages/abortions (whatever terminology you choose) when practicing NFP.

An off-cycle ovulation due to have relations during an infertile not implanting

 

[LaSainte]

Sacredcello, you are citing information on follicular development from the 1950s. The study I cited took place in 2003. A 50 year time lapse in these studies might account for some of the more accurate information provided in the 2003 study.

The study included 63 women and daily, high resolution trans-vaginal ultrasounds on these women. The “waves” you cite are what has been known about since the 1950s, but the ultrasounds showed that 6 of these women actually ovulated twice during the same month. They are continuing studies to discover why some waves lead to actual ovulation and some do not.

 

[sacredcello]

Yes,it is on the box as a hypothetical possibility. It has never been proven,

This is a disingenuous response that is callous toward those humans who are discarded by the Pill.

From a paper by William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D. The Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive.

Let’s look at the math. Women on BCP’s have 28-day cycles and thus have 13 cycles/year (365/28 = 13.3). According to Facts in Brief from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (3/13/98), some 10,410,000 U.S women are current pill users, a figure that constitutes 26.9% of all those using some method of contraception. This is second only to sterilization, which is used by 27.7% of contraceptors. Gambrell notes that there is a 14% breakthrough ovulation rate in females taking the 50 microgram pills (10,410,000 x .14 = 1,457,400 x 13 cycles/year = 18,946,200 possible exposures to pregnancy each year. The accepted rate for “pill pregnancies” is 3-5 per 100 women years. Noting the fact that there is a 60+% rate of spontaneous tubal abortions with an unfavorable implantation site in ectopic pregnancies, it is reasonable for us to calculate that the rate of conceptions lost to early physician-induced (BCP) abortion of intrauterine pregnancies in pill users is twice that of term “pill pregnancies,” given once again, an endometrium that is “less vascular, less glandular, thinner” than normal. Thus the possible abortion-rate induced by BCP’s is 18,946,200 x .06 = 1,136,772 or 18,946,200 x .1 = 1,894,620/year. We are convinced that the reasoning with regard to the math on this issue is sound.

uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf