NFP and contraception

[LittleDeb]

Dear LittleDeb,

I appreciate your wisdom and hope to follow your lead and to avoid these types of debates in the future. It seems to be an exercise in futility, as one can cite sources until one is blue in the face, but if the heart is not inclined toward the beauty and truth found in our Catholic faith, well then…

In any case, I am sorry to hear about your losses. I didn’t know that you could have a luteal phase that is only 3 days. That would be a sign of very low progesterone, indeed. It’s good to be alive in a time when there are a few good doctors who are able to investigate and treat our female medical issues. Anyway, I hope to be as blessed as you with 2 children some day.

God bless you.

Thank you!! The fact that mine are all over the board is what makes me rare in many ways (20-40 days). The more common types are actually more like LaSainte’s grandmother. From what was described, and from what I know about the topic, she likely would ovulate on day 7, have a 7 day luteal phase, bleed unnoticed and then cycle again within the same month. Without a long time to build up a uterine lining, it can be a very faint shedding. It looks like pink mucous actually. Her grandmother would have had the same amount of fertile time during each calendar month as a normal cycle, but it would be divided into two cycles. Obviously calendar rhythm wouldn’t work, but STM would be very effective. That method would be valuable in determining ovulation had likely occurred, by the raised temp, and that menses was occurring, due to the dropped temp. I am curious and hope she shares her grandmother’s age. I am wondering which method she attempted. The time period would give clues.

She was very blessed to have an adequate luteal phase to carry those babies to term. On some level, calling it a “hyper-fertility” is accurate in some ways, just not the way it sometimes is presented by some medical journals… She could ovulate quickly, and had a fairly short luteal phase if she was actually ovulating twice in a month. I am interested in seeing the study out of Canada to find out if they ultrasounded for ovulation and temped for menses. If either is missing, their findings of a “double ovulation” would be inconclusive, at best, even to prove two cycles in a month. To prove the theory that they are in the same cycle and in opposite ovaries, they would have to ultrasound each ovary, in each subject, every week, or even more frequently. It is more likely that the study drew conclusions that were not necessarily evidenced. I am open to being wrong. But in my experience, secular science is still waaaay behind in this area.

Thank you for your kind words. It is difficult when you know you miscarried, but don’t have the little “pee on a stick” to prove it. To add to it, our culture really isn’t that sympathetic to early miscarriage since the rumor spreads about the common occurrence of miscarriage. I am so thankful for NFP. I knew my (living) daughter was there the very next day. Not because my chart told me, but because I am now tuned to the changes in my body due to NFP. God has his reasons for giving me this particular cross to bear. I thank Him for this burden because it has brought me closer to Him. Why He did it this particular way, I don’t know. Someday, I might finally understand!!

Prayers for your journey. Yours is harder than mine. Having been totally infertile and now being on the other side, I can honestly say, my crippling physical pain is minor compared to the daily burden of infertility. Infertility aches to the depths of your heart.

 

[LittleDeb]

My understanding of the pill’s method of action was primarily contraceptive (preventing ovulation and inhibiting sperm movement) and secondarily contragestive - not abortive. However, I usually look to secular sources for medical information. For a change, I looked to a religious one: The American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
They address the controversy of if the pill is abortifacient. They offer two papers to read: one is this paper you cite. The other is “Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications.”

Hi samiam1611,

I know you were addressing sacredcello here, but I do want to say something quickly. (if it is even possible to be brief, I don’t know but I will try. )

Years ago, we hashed out a similar paper here on the forums. It went on for months. What was basically realized is that it can’t be proven or dis-proven to not cause abortions due to the total lack of test subjects and funding. It would be terribly inconvenient and invasive to do the study. There would have to be the two groups who were willing to have every bit of their menstrual fluid collected and tested. That means that the woman could not even privately urinate without collection. Her bath and shower water would even have to be studied. And it would have to be every last drop of blood, studied under a microscope.

The study group would have to be women who are on the Pill but willing to have their samples collected for signs of abortion. Then, they would have to determine which abortions were spontaneous and which were chemical. That is nearly impossible to distinguish at the zygote or embryonic stage. And most of all there would have to be someone who funded the study in the first place. The Pill manufaturers have no interest in proving that their Pill can cause abortion. Pharmaceuticals usually fund those studies. But there is no money to be made in proving it either way, so no one would have a reason.

Basically, the Pill is designed to thin the lining of the uterus. It is a tertiary mechanism, but it is there. Saying that it ***can ***cause abortion is not a misstatement.

Please forgive my intrusion, but I did want to let you know that we have dealt with it here to quite some length.

 

[Abu]

Your post below is right to the point, LittleDeb, and the dissenters never have any reasonable answers because of their prejudices.

Originally Posted by Warrior1979
The natural order of things is to have relations during the fertile period, not the infertile period.

"But this assertion is applicable here and completely inaccurate.

"The so-called “natural order” is to have relations whenever. The mutually fertile phase is when we are at our highest desire, but this, in no way, means that relations during the infertile phase are not according to the natural design.

"What many of you do not seem to be aware is that you are debating a point in a thread where more than one of us have suffered or are still suffering infertility. I made that point upthread, but my wordiness probably buried it. The arguments many of you are using are shot down because they don’t apply to the infertile. The rules don’t change due to “barrenness,” though many of the arguments people are making here want to make an exception for the “intent of the barren.” Intent is important. It is actually very important. But it is not what is being discussed here. Method is the point of this discussion. There are ways to have sex while not conceiving. Some are acceptable, some are not.

"The question we ask the Church is, ‘Is it licit to have relations that are exclusively infertile’ The Church answers, ‘Yes, but for serious reasons only. Children are a blessing that is not to be taken lightly.’ "

 

[Abu]

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=11004
Pill inventor slams … pill
Published: January 08, 2009
Catholic News Agency details the claims by the president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Dr Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, who outlined a series of scientific arguments said to confirm the prophetic nature of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on artificial contraception.
In an article published by the L’Osservatore Romano, the Spanish doctor pointed to the Federation’s recent document commemorating the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, which “irrefutably shows that the most widely used anti-ovulatory pill in the industrialised world, the one made with low doses of estrogen and progesterone, in many cases works with an anti-implantation effect; that is, abortifacient [effect], because it expels a small human embryo.”

Castellvi also pointed out that “this anti-implantation effect is acknowledged in scientific literature, which shamelessly speaks of an embryo loss rate. Curiously, however, this information does not reach the public at large.”

He also pointed to the “devastating ecological effects of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year. We have sufficient data to state that one of the causes of masculine infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.” Castellvi noted as well that the International Agency for Research on Cancer reported in 2005 that the pill has carcinogenic effects.

After explaining that the “natural methods of regulating fertility are the ones that are effective and that respect the nature of the person,” Castellvi stated that “in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man we can say that the contraceptive methods violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, the right to information (its dissemination occurs to the detriment of information about natural methods) and the right of equality between the sexes (responsibility for contraceptive use almost always falls to the woman).”

 

[samiam1611]

Hi samiam1611,

I know you were addressing sacredcello here, but I do want to say something quickly. (if it is even possible to be brief, I don’t know but I will try. )

Years ago, we hashed out a similar paper here on the forums. It went on for months. What was basically realized is that it can’t be proven or dis-proven to not cause abortions due to the total lack of test subjects and funding. It would be terribly inconvenient and invasive to do the study. There would have to be the two groups who were willing to have every bit of their menstrual fluid collected and tested. That means that the woman could not even privately urinate without collection. Her bath and shower water would even have to be studied. And it would have to be every last drop of blood, studied under a microscope.

The study group would have to be women who are on the Pill but willing to have their samples collected for signs of abortion. Then, they would have to determine which abortions were spontaneous and which were chemical. That is nearly impossible to distinguish at the zygote or embryonic stage. And most of all there would have to be someone who funded the study in the first place. The Pill manufaturers have no interest in proving that their Pill can cause abortion. Pharmaceuticals usually fund those studies. But there is no money to be made in proving it either way, so no one would have a reason.

Basically, the Pill is designed to thin the lining of the uterus. It is a tertiary mechanism, but it is there. Saying that it ***can ***cause abortion is not a misstatement.

Please forgive my intrusion, but I did want to let you know that we have dealt with it here to quite some length.

Don’t mind you butting in one bit, it was just her comment that brought the subject to my mind but was not meant particularly for her.

I totally hear ya on that. On that same site, they say “We are not currently sophisticated enough to evaluate oral contraceptives (or even IUDs) for a possible effect on the pre-implantation human being in the same rigorous fashion”

“It is in a situation such as this where we are at our best when we “agree to disagree” in a spirit of humility, while remaining open to new information which may further enlighten us” and I wholeheartedly agree. I think they have a great attitude on that.

Sorry for repeating something said so much I didn’t bother searching; but maybe there are some guests viewing this thread that didn’t either so hopefully no one minds a little peep every now and then from the pro-ABC atheist over here.

 

[sacredcello]

Please forgive my intrusion, but I did want to let you know that we have dealt with it here to quite some length.

LittleDeb,

You were not intruding at all. It is good to know that this topic has already been addressed at CAF and I appreciate your assessment and conclusions. I had thought about the requirements for this study such as collecting every last drop of menstrual fluid and wondered who would ever go through with it.

One of the gynecological endocrinologists in the paper I cited earlier stated that there is breakthrough ovulation in 14% of women who are taking the 50 microgram Pill (ovulation can be confirmed through daily ultrasound). But, there are only 3-5 pill pregnancies per 100 women years, so it stands to reason.

 

[sacredcello]

She was very blessed to have an adequate luteal phase to carry those babies to term. On some level, calling it a “hyper-fertility” is accurate in some ways, just not the way it sometimes is presented by some medical journals… She could ovulate quickly, and had a fairly short luteal phase if she was actually ovulating twice in a month. I am interested in seeing the study out of Canada to find out if they ultrasounded for ovulation and temped for menses. If either is missing, their findings of a “double ovulation” would be inconclusive, at best, even to prove two cycles in a month. To prove the theory that they are in the same cycle and in opposite ovaries, they would have to ultrasound each ovary, in each subject, every week, or even more frequently. It is more likely that the study drew conclusions that were not necessarily evidenced. I am open to being wrong. But in my experience, secular science is still waaaay behind in this area.

Yes, I agree, that LaSainte’s grandmother was very blessed to have an adequate luteal phase to carry her babies.

The study in Canada did daily ultrasounds, but it doesn’t say that there was any charting or temping, so it is likely that they misunderstood their own data. Here’s what it says

The team carried out daily, high resolution trans-vaginal ultrasound examinations on 63 women with normal menstrual cycles who were aged between 18 and 40. Over six weeks, the women’s individual follicles were measured.

During the study, 50 of the women ovulated only once, but six ovulated twice and seven not at all. The next stage of the research will be to find out why some waves lead to ovulation while others do not.

Prayers for your journey. Yours is harder than mine. Having been totally infertile and now being on the other side, I can honestly say, my crippling physical pain is minor compared to the daily burden of infertility. Infertility aches to the depths of your heart.

Prayers for you as well. I appreciate your wisdom and kindness, LittleDeb. I’ll pray that your burden is lightened. :hug1:

 

[sacredcello]

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=11004

Good article, Abu. Here’s another quote which is relevant for this thread:

He said that in most of Europe there was now “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction.”

 

[sacredcello]

To those who hold that NFP is immoral, please reply: Based on my circumstances, whom should I follow; an ECF whom we don’t totally understand, or a long list of infallible Popes who declared the practice licit? Thank you for any prayers you can offer that we continue to discern the will of God under this painful burden.

The long list of infallible Popes.

Prayers for you are offered.

*I know you weren’t addressing me, because I don’t hold NFP to be immoral, but just in case no one else answers…

 

[Chrono13]

The Church needed to respond to the uproar. Many were claiming that the Church was rejecting “science” by continuing to forbid contraception.

And how it responded at the end? By rejecting science and bypassing the tradition which said sex is only for procreation.

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.

So commission was formed to give specifics of the situation? They have. NFP destroys marriage, tradition speaks of sex only for procreation. None of these were touched in document.

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.

Not really. Most people in the Church have trouble understanding Pope’s logic, and those outside even more.

 

[Chrono13]

He never said that. Granted, in the quote, the specific “use” of intercourse is never specified.

He sure did. He reminds the reader what Augustine taught about sex: that it should be practiced because of it’s use (and we all know what is use of sex for Augustine), not for enjoyment (ie. anything else).

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.

The chapter is called “The Sanctity of the Marriage Bed”, meaning he talks about sex, not videogames.

“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.”

Condition such as pregnancy or sterility will not make the act evil. Even having sex on infertile day of the cycle is not bad.But when this condition is used specifically to avoid procreation (for example, if man marries sterile woman so he could have sex without children) it is problematic. Same goes with NFP. To have sex on infertile day because it is infertile, is not accidental- thus, not acceptable.

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.

Same as St. Augustine. Nobody ever claimed that the belief sex is only for procreation would forbid barren or pregnant couples to have intercourse.

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.

Let’s go further with Thomastic thought. By it’s “essence”, woman is “fertile” as some accident has to happen for her to become “infertile”. Yet, woman in infertile period of the menstrual cycle is not in essence infertile- since she theoretically can conceive.

This is common sense. A woman is not considered “barren” while in infertile period.

Since cycle is not accident, but something of the woman’s essence, you can’t tag infertile period as accident. It would be like saying sleeping is an accident to being awake.

Infertile periods can also be understood as accidental conditions.

They surely can not. They are not accidents.

However, if you are having sex on infertile day by accident, it is not sinful. If you chart, such sexual act is not an accident- it is planned in advance with desire to ejaculate semen without chance of providing generation.

 

[LaSainte]

LittleDeb,

Thank you for your post. It was kind and insightful and I am duly humbled and impressed with your ability to be so charitable even in a state of disagreement. I really enjoyed reading it and I do hope that God sees fit to lift the burden of your health issues from you because you sound like someone who is probably a wonderful mother called to have a houseful of babies! Thank you for your kindness and insight.

And my grandmother is 81, but I don’t know what method of NFP they used.

God bless!

 

[LaSainte]

I just wanted to say that although here is no specific evidence that the pill has caused miscarriages because of the lack of studies and the logistics involved, I am sure that it can and does happen (it does say so on the box), and I would never advocate it’s use for anyone based on this information. Even one abortion of even a 2 day old blastocyst that could have been with us on his earth is TOO MANY.

This is actually one of my main reasons besides Church teaching for using NFP. Condoms are a pain and the pill or anything like it is out of the question.

When I talk about ABC here, I am NOT referring to methods that have even the slightest chance of causing abortions as those are and always will be immoral.

I just don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea or think that because I posted a study on the pill that I would ever condone or support it’s use as birth control.

 

[copperblade]

As it has been said here before by those wiser than I. “NFP is not an alternative to contraception. It is an alternative to total abstinence.” To those who hold that NFP is immoral, please reply: Based on my circumstances, whom should I follow; an ECF whom we don’t totally understand, or a long list of infallible Popes who declared the practice licit? Thank you for any prayers you can offer that we continue to discern the will of God under this painful burden.

I don’t think NFP is immoral in and of itself. I think what matters is what is in your heart, that you care about the issue, and you are sensitive to the morality of it. I think the answer to your question is to pray, use the reasoning ability that God gave you, and follow your conscience. These are always personal choices and I don’t think God wants us to simply follow blindly.

 

[copperblade]

I just wanted to say that although here is no specific evidence that the pill has caused miscarriages because of the lack of studies and the logistics involved, I am sure that it can and does happen (it does say so on the box), and I would never advocate it’s use for anyone based on this information. Even one abortion of even a 2 day old blastocyst that could have been with us on his earth is TOO MANY.

This is actually one of my main reasons besides Church teaching for using NFP. Condoms are a pain and the pill or anything like it is out of the question.

When I talk about ABC here, I am NOT referring to methods that have even the slightest chance of causing abortions as those are and always will be immoral.

I just don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea or think that because I posted a study on the pill that I would ever condone or support it’s use as birth control.

Yeah, I get your point. You mean that people get over-concerned about the slightest chance of abortion due to the pill, when naturally there are miscarriages all the time that people don’t know about.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

How about using a natural means that effects the same result? Is this acceptable? According to this discussion, it absolutely is.

Having relations only during the infertile period creates a similar environment. Having relations only during the fertile period avoids it. Which is the correct course of action?

Is is natural, and acceptable, to have relations only at a time that increase that chance of miscarriage?

The miscarriage is a result of the egg not implanting in the first place. Just like in the case of the pill, it is highly unlikely the couple would ever be aware of the “miscarriage.”

But now that we know that this can happen, and the couple do it anyway, it still isn’t sinful?

I’m keeping it simple, BTW. The natural order of things is to have relations during the fertile period, not the infertile period.

I just wanted to touch on these things…I’m a Creighton user, I use it for medical reasons.

1. I’m not sure having relations in infertile periods causes a higher likelyhood of miscarriage. In order for sperm to get to the egg, fertile mucus is absoulutely neccessary. Lack of fertile mucus would not allow for conception.
2. If the environment allows for conception, the same environment would also allow for implantation ( assuming the couple is only using NFP).Estrogen is the hormone that both allows ovulation and the thickening of the endometrium. Estrogen allows for proper mucus production.
3. Creighton (or Dr. Hilgers) has discovered that a short post peak phase is indicative of poor production of progesterone. Progesterone is released with the egg in from the corpus luteum. The pregnancy needs an adequate amount of progesterone to continue.
4. Early miscarriage also is attributed to chromosomal abnormalities in the embryo that are incompatible to life.
5. So, with Creighton, the couple would know when they conceive, (it would not be likely that a Creighton couple conceived on a non fertile day ie a non mucus day). It is not likely the embryo failed to implant due to a thin endometrium the way it happens or (could happen) with the pill. Early miscarriages occur due to lack of progesterone and or chromosomal abnormalities.

 

[ac_claire]

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.

Are you Catholic? We go by what the Church teaches because the Church, as always, holds the truth. The truth of this argument and of everything else.

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.

And this is basically what it comes down to. LaSainte, you make some really good points. And your argument would be relevant and would make a lot of sense if we were discussing the etymology of the word “contraception”…or if we were discussing the literal, dictionary definition of what “NFP” means and how it is alike or different from contraception. But we’re not arguing that. The point here is what does the Church teach about NFP and ABC and contraception? The Church’s teaching is what matters to us, because we trust that the Church ultimately holds the Truth.

 

[LaSainte]

Yeah, I get your point. You mean that people get over-concerned about the slightest chance of abortion due to the pill, when naturally there are miscarriages all the time that people don’t know about.

I just wanted to present accurate facts, that’s all. I still think the pill is immoral so long as there is even a slight chance that it can cause a woman to miscarry an otherwise viable pregnancy, but let’s not pretend it happens all the time.

 

[copperblade]

However, if you are having sex on infertile day by accident, it is not sinful. If you chart, such sexual act is not an accident- it is planned in advance with desire to ejaculate semen without chance of providing generation.

How come that isn’t explicitly mentioned? I don’t think you can say that any of the Church Fathers simply thought you couldn’t figure out when a woman was infertile. There might be much better accuracy today, but it certainly was possible to try to have sex only on infertile days before.

 

[LaSainte]

Are you Catholic? We go by what the Church teaches because the Church, as always, holds the truth. The truth of this argument and of everything else.

And this is basically what it comes down to. LaSainte, you make some really good points. And your argument would be relevant and would make a lot of sense if we were discussing the etymology of the word “contraception”…or if we were discussing the literal, dictionary definition of what “NFP” means and how it is alike or different from contraception. But we’re not arguing that. The point here is what does the Church teach about NFP and ABC and contraception? The Church’s teaching is what matters to us, because we trust that the Church ultimately holds the Truth.

Now THIS is an honest response and one I can certainly respect. If the only thing that really matters is what the Church says, then just say so and the argument ends right there. Refusing to acknowledge the validity of other sources or twisting their words or arguing what the definition of “is” is (a la Bill Clinton) only weakens one’s position in the end. If the only definition one will accept is one given to them by the Catholic Church, then there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying exactly that.