NFP is a misnomer

[p.e.driver]

Rob's Wife:

No where in the bible or tradition or the CCC is there mention of charting. Abstinence - yes. Not the “Art of Natural Family Planning” book.

I would love to hear why you are obviously so hostile to the Sympto-Thermal Method. There is more than one method. Not all use charts. Some women “just know” their bodies well enough to know when to abstain.

Also, Humanae Vitae (& I believe the CCC quotes it ) DOES talk about observing the natural rhythms of fertility… if that means you can keep it all in your head without charting… go ahead.

Very few people use NFP for serious reasons

I’d say out of 3 Billion AMERICANS few people use NFP but MOST WHO DO use it for serious reasons.

Now, if you will step outside of our country, NFP is used on many other continents with a much better rate of appreciation.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I would love to hear why you are obviously so hostile to the Sympto-Thermal Method. There is more than one method. Not all use charts. Some women “just know” their bodies well enough to know when to abstain.
I’m not hostile to STM at all, so please do not put words into my mouth. There are several methods and some women do “just know” - but usually only after using a chart for a while first. I do not find any of them “natural” though - which was the topic of the post.
Also, Humanae Vitae (& I believe the CCC quotes it ) DOES talk about observing the natural rhythms of fertility… if that means you can keep it all in your head without charting… go ahead.

Very few people use NFP for serious reasons

I’d say out of 3 Billion AMERICANS few people use NFP but MOST WHO DO use it for serious reasons.
I disagree. I will tweak my comment though if it makes everyone feel better. Very few people living in 1st world countries use NFP for serious reasons. You have your view and I have mine.
Now, if you will step outside of our country, NFP is used on many other continents with a much better rate of appreciation.
Very true. Doesn’t have anything to do with the topic, but certainly true. Just because someone in another country appreciates it, doesn’t mean I should change my personal feelings about it.

---

Now, I’m curious to know why everyone is so hostile to people who don’t jump on the NFP-happy bandwagon?

 

[manualman]

NFP will never be just ‘catholic birth control’ to those that practice it.

Barrier ABC methods like condoms are wrong because they transform the marital act from self-giving to mutual taking. Worse, they tend to self-perpetuate since using them SEEMS to have no downside to those who see sex as solely about pleasure.

NFP includes a built-in mechanism (the abstinance period) that pushes a couple back towards reconsideration of the serious reason for postponing more kids. Anybody who says that sacrifice doesn’t make you ponder has libido problems!

 

[Angainor]

mlchance:

As long as we’re striving to be logical, we can also draw attention to the frequent equivocation using the terms “nature” and “natural” (especially the latter). In Catholic parlance, “natural” doesn’t mean “of the natural world” or “the way animals do things” or “letting things to take their own course” (to use the flawed definition from the original post). “Natural” means “in conformity to natural law.” That is the only definition acceptable since it is the only definition relevant to the topic.

Alright, I have been basing all my arguments on the first sense of the word. I will have to consider the question in the natural law sense.

Assuming NFP is within the boundaries of natural law, the question then is, why is contraception against natural law?

 

[p.e.driver]

Angainor:

Alright, I have been basing all my arguments on the first sense of the word. I will have to consider the question in the natural law sense.

Assuming NFP is within the boundaries of natural law, the question then is, why is contraception against natural law?

I’m not an expert on natural law, but I’ll take a crack at it : The word “Artificial” in ABC means not derived from nature, and my dictionary says “natural law” means derived from nature.

Anyone else want to add?

 

[mercygate]

p.e.driver:

I’m not an expert on natural law, but I’ll take a crack at it : The word “Artificial” in ABC means not derived from nature, and my dictionary says “natural law” means derived from nature.

Anyone else want to add?

Well, coitus interruptus and mutual masturbation are not “artificial” but they certainly fail to meet the standard of “natural law” as applied to the procreative relationship between a husband and wife in Christian marriage. So it isn’t just “aritificiality” that is at issue, it is the level of “nature” that is at issue: mere biological nature, or fully Human nature?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

**I would like to point out that this does not seem to be about whether NFP is more natural than ABC. **The question seems to be whether NFP is natural. Or maybe it’s even more specific than that: Is the use of various NFP methods of abstience to avoid pregnancy a natural thing to do?

---

mercygate brought up an interesting, and I believe true statement:

Well, coitus interruptus and mutual masturbation are not “artificial” but they certainly fail to meet the standard of “natural law” as applied to the procreative relationship between a husband and wife in Christian marriage. So it isn’t just “aritificiality” that is at issue, it is the level of “nature” that is at issue: mere biological nature, or fully Human nature?

**One could argue there is a basic part of human nature that leads us to want a “full & complete union” with our spouse and that anything less, leaves unsatisfaction of some degree. Leading to the idea that **

NFP includes a built-in mechanism (the abstinance period) that pushes a couple back

mentioned by manuelman in a previous post. However, whether it would push the couple to be more open to pregnancy is an issue of debate and speculation. Couldn’t it also cause marital stress, tempt them to try ABC, or create general unsatisfaction with the s life resulting in lowered libido?**

---

Maybe a sub-issue here is whether it’s natural to not be open to pregnancy? (Especially if we assume there is not any serious medical reason to avoid pregnency as the foundation for the decision.)

 

[Ham1]

I think it really depends on what we mean by nature. Do we mean the way man was created by God in His original design? Or do we mean behaviors that while not the norm are still in accord with Nature? I would say NFP is the latter. It can be used in accord with nature for just reasons. As for the design of the Creator, God designed man and woman to be joined together in marriage, to consummate that marriage as they are moved to do so and to welcome the children that are brought forth. In some sense, waiting to engage in marital intimacy is contrary to this original design, but is still in accord with nature as it does not violate God’s laws.

You make a good point that NFP is not the norm and should not be viewed as such. Ideally, a couple would be free to engage in sexual activity whenever they are so inclined. But for just reasons sometimes a couple can decide NOT to act on these desires for just reasons. In deciding NOT to act the couple is going against the natural inclination that was put in them by the Creator. So, I guess in a sense it is going against a natural inclination but not in a moral sense because there is no moral imperative that says a couple is obligated to act whenever these inclinations arise.

Very interesting topic and one that more people should consider.

Thanks!