NFP - Is it really natural?

[maryjk]

My point is this: Why do you insist that NFP is the only option for those who choose not to have more children? That is neither practical nor realistic for many couples.

Which couples?

By the way, I did know one Catholic couple in our church a few years years ago who used NFP…they are divorced now…after eight children. I also had an aunt and uncle who used NFP. They are now also divorced…after seven children. Those are the only couples I actually know who used NFP, or would admit it.

Oh, these couples. Since the two that you know are now divorced, then people that use NFP have lots of children then get divorced.

Just to let you know, I know lots of couples that use NFP. None of these couples are divorced. AND not all of them have lots of children.

In fact, let me introduce you to ME. We use NFP, we have one child and will have been married 15 years on Monday.

And by the way, no one forces me to use NFP. I choose to use it because I believe God wouldn’t want me to mutilate my body or put chemicals in my body simply so that I could have sex whenever I wanted.

 

[rayne89]

Which couples?

Oh, these couples. Since the two that you know are now divorced, then people that use NFP have lots of children then get divorced.

Just to let you know, I know lots of couples that use NFP. None of these couples are divorced. AND not all of them have lots of children.

In fact, let me introduce you to ME. We use NFP, we have one child and will have been married 15 years on Monday.

And by the way, no one forces me to use NFP. I choose to use it because I believe God wouldn’t want me to mutilate my body or put chemicals in my body simply so that I could have sex whenever I wanted.

Ditto:thumbsup: Married almost 16 years, 1 child. Started using NFP about 10 years ago after returning to the church. Major medical problems would make another pregnancy almost certainly fatal. Our marriage has only gotten better since we began using NFP.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Regarding his intent: There was a positive command in the Jewish Law to take as wife the spouse of a deceased, childless brother and to beget children with her. **Onan’s “intent” was to not father a child by his dead brother’s wife. This transgressed that specific command-- **and is what made his “intent” wrong. The general “intent” of postponing a pregnancy is not applicable in this scenario.

His action of contracepting is intrinsically disordered and immoral.

so for which did God punished him?

 

[ElizabethAnne]

I feel sorry young for couples who have to deal with this kind of pressure from the Catholic church.

Hello Priscilla Ann,

My husband and I are one of those young married couples, and there’s really no reason to feel sorry for us. I am eternally grateful to the Catholic Church for her guidance on family planning and so many other matters!

The Church has never backed down from her position that marriage is a sacrament entered into by three people – man, wife and God – for the sanctification of the couple. It is a beautiful and holy teaching that includes within it an understanding that the sexual act must not be altered in any way.

God bless you.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks fix & 1ke
One of the slippery slopes with this greater question is the separation of sin and intent. I am not ready to say such a separation exists. So to proceed we have to agree the intent being morally neutral? Which means we have to set up a series of dichotomies as sex within marriage verses sex outside of marriage, then sex for procreation intent verses sex for unity, then allowed actions verses non-allowed actions.

Now that gives us a few problems

1. The Old Testament activities which do not follow our plan. This tends to imply that the Church bound not God, as God could not change in the BC vs AD periods.
2. Sexual Gratification- we now need to address the unity verses the gratification aspect of sex
3. Contraception by use of time, see NFP uses time to separate sperm and eggs. This must be redefined as it would mean NFP is a contraceptive.
4. If we choose to avoid NFP’s infertility as non-contraception via saying it is a natural act of sex, then the NFP practices appear to constitute a formal attempt to subvert the natural fertility ( kind of like a sin, right back to Onan). This of course can not be allowed to stand. So we can circle back to unity, but since we postponed unity as procreation was likely we substitute abstinence. Now this abstinence is man induced abstinence for what purpose? ( are we not restricted to unity and procreation?)
5. and various other issues not currently on my mind

I hope this displays one of the many circle in which I and others seem to stay in on this issue. I look forward to alternative arrangements of these issues -thanks

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks fix & 1ke
One of the slippery slopes with this greater question is the separation of sin and intent. I am not ready to say such a separation exists. So to proceed we have to agree the intent being morally neutral? Which means we have to set up a series of dichotomies as sex within marriage verses sex outside of marriage, then sex for procreation intent verses sex for unity, then allowed actions verses non-allowed actions.

Now that gives us a few problems

1. The Old Testament activities which do not follow our plan. This tends to imply that the Church bound not God, as God could not change in the BC vs AD periods.
2. Sexual Gratification- we now need to address the unity verses the gratification aspect of sex
3. Contraception by use of time, see NFP uses time to separate sperm and eggs. This must be redefined as it would mean NFP is a contraceptive.
4. If we choose to avoid NFP’s infertility as non-contraception via saying it is a natural act of sex, then the NFP practices appear to constitute a formal attempt to subvert the natural fertility ( kind of like a sin, right back to Onan). This of course can not be allowed to stand. So we can circle back to unity, but since we postponed unity as procreation was likely we substitute abstinence. Now this abstinence is man induced abstinence for what purpose? ( are we not restricted to unity and procreation?)
5. and various other issues not currently on my mind

I hope this displays one of the many circle in which I and others seem to stay in on this issue. I look forward to alternative arrangements of these issues -thanks

 

[fix]

1. The Old Testament activities which do not follow our plan. This tends to imply that the Church bound not God, as God could not change in the BC vs AD periods.

I am unaware of any period when God allowed contraception? That is part of the proof it is evil. It has always been condemned.

1. Sexual Gratification- we now need to address the unity verses the gratification aspect of sex

Not following?

1. Contraception by use of time, see NFP uses time to separate sperm and eggs. This must be redefined as it would mean NFP is a contraceptive.

We can’t redefine the act. NFP never separates the act. That is the point. Contraception always separates the act.

1. If we choose to avoid NFP’s infertility as non-contraception via saying it is a natural act of sex, then the NFP practices appear to constitute a formal attempt to subvert the natural fertility ( kind of like a sin, right back to Onan). This of course can not be allowed to stand. So we can circle back to unity, but since we postponed unity as procreation was likely we substitute abstinence. Now this abstinence is man induced abstinence for what purpose? ( are we not restricted to unity and procreation?)

God ordained the fertility cycle for a reason. NFP uses that God given cycle.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer

1. The Old Testament activities which do not follow our plan. This tends to imply that the Church bound not God, as God could not change in the BC vs AD periods.

Originally Posted by fix
I am unaware of any period when God allowed contraception? That is part of the proof it is evil. It has always been condemned.

In the old testament God allowed a lot on sex outside our current guidelines ( David & Abram actions were rather significant in this issue)

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
2) Sexual Gratification- we now need to address the unity verses the gratification aspect of sex

Originally Posted by fix
Not following?

If we agree sex is restricted to procreation and unity we may or may not be allowing gratification? ( which brings in other problems)

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
3) Contraception by use of time, see NFP uses time to separate sperm and eggs. This must be redefined as it would mean NFP is a contraceptive.

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
We can’t redefine the act. NFP never separates the act. That is the point. Contraception always separates the act.

Both Contraception and NFP separate the sperm and the egg. Contraception may use many forms (plastic, egg removal, sperm removal, etc, etc) NFP uses time either the sperm or the egg is present but not both. I do not understand the word “act” as you use it here.

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
4) If we choose to avoid NFP’s infertility as non-contraception via saying it is a natural act of sex, then the NFP practices appear to constitute a formal attempt to subvert the natural fertility ( kind of like a sin, right back to Onan). This of course can not be allowed to stand. So we can circle back to unity, but since we postponed unity as procreation was likely we substitute abstinence. Now this abstinence is man induced abstinence for what purpose? ( are we not restricted to unity and procreation?)

Originally Posted by fix
God ordained the fertility cycle for a reason. NFP uses that God given cycle.

Not following the relevance of this, if you are saying God developed non-fertile periods in females to allow unity between man and wife without procreation, then it seems to imply God wanted man to eventually figure out how to manipulate such? Maybe that is not what you meant but why would God not disclose such an important factor in life? similarly why would some irregular cycles exist if God’s master plan involves man figuring out how to manipulate the female cycle? Not that I see this paragraph as relevant either, I am probably mis understanding you on this

 

[fix]

In the old testament God allowed a lot on sex outside our current guidelines ( David & Abram actions were rather significant in this issue)

Please see the new advent site regarding this point. I have seen no proof contraception was ever licit.

With special safeguards annexed to it Moses adopted the Divine dispensation on account of the hardness of heart of the Jewish people. Neither polygamy nor divorce can be said to be contrary to the primary precepts of nature. The primary end of marriage is compatible with both. But at least they are against the secondary precepts of the natural law: contrary, that is, to what is required for the well-ordering of human life. In these secondary precepts, however, God can dispense for good reason if He sees fit to do so.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm

If we agree sex is restricted to procreation and unity we may or may not be allowing gratification? ( which brings in other problems)

How do you define gratification?

Both Contraception and NFP separate the sperm and the egg. Contraception may use many forms (plastic, egg removal, sperm removal, etc, etc) NFP uses time either the sperm or the egg is present but not both. I do not understand the word “act” as you use it here.

NFP does not separate the act or embrace. The problem is not that conception may or may not happen. The problem is separating the unitive and procreative aspects. That is why even if both folks are 80 years old a condom is immoral.

Not following the relevance of this, if you are saying God developed non-fertile periods in females to allow unity between man and wife without procreation, then it seems to imply God wanted man to eventually figure out how to manipulate such?

No, I am saying God ordained a cycle that allows one to avoid conception if needed. That one is infertile does not separate being unitive and procreative.

Maybe that is not what you meant but why would God not disclose such an important factor in life? similarly why would some irregular cycles exist if God’s master plan involves man figuring out how to manipulate the female cycle? Not that I see this paragraph as relevant either, I am probably mis understanding you on this

The cycle has a rhythm. In some folks there may be a type of pathology to the cycle but that does not invalidate the fact that normally the cycle has periods of fertility and infertility. It is consistent with nature that we use that information. What is inconsistent with nature is to intentionally break the two aspects of the marital act.

 

[maryjk]

similarly why would some irregular cycles exist if God’s master plan involves man figuring out how to manipulate the female cycle? Not that I see this paragraph as relevant either, I am probably mis understanding you on this

Maybe just a poor choice of words here, but NFP does nothing to manipulate the cycle. It simply allows the woman to become aware of her fertile and infertile times.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please see the new advent site regarding this point. I have seen no proof **contraception **was ever licit.

The earlier posts note that in the Old Testament sex outside of marriage was allowed of God’s chosen men, and in some case procreation nor unity appears to resemble the objective

How do you define gratification?

? Why should I. It is the Church not I differentiating the acts and conditions.

NFP does not separate the act or embrace. The problem is not that conception may or may not happen. The problem is separating the unitive and procreative aspects. That is why even if both folks are 80 years old a condom is immoral.

NFP separates the sperm and the egg by timing, other wise NFP has no affect, success, or use. The 80 year olds separate the sperm and egg through absence of an egg. I think others site this of an example of when the natural action of measuring the female body is conspicuously absent. But that does not matter to me.

No, I am saying God ordained a cycle that allows one to avoid conception if needed. That one is infertile does not separate being unitive and procreative.

That one is infertile does not separate being ------ procreative. God either made the infertile period which includes menstruation for unity or he did not. The old law deals with that issue (menstruation) also. Why there are 3 condition (fertile, infertile non menstruation, infertile menstruation) spread into 4 time windows is unknown to me, but it seems as an unlike base for NFP, because man existed a long time without ability to fulfill God’s plan for unity in marriage, separated from procreation via NFP methods?

The cycle has a rhythm. In some folks there may be a type of pathology to the cycle but that does not invalidate the fact that normally the cycle has periods of fertility and infertility. It is consistent with nature that we use that information.

Is that Using today’s knowledge and tools (thermometer, ect) we can predict fertile periods with enough accuracy to use this information only as a means to avoid pregnancy? As in poor people who lived before now? Or thank goodness we are not at the mercy of nature any longer?

What is inconsistent with nature is to intentionally break the two aspects of the marital act.

uh is the object of NFP not to intentionally break the two aspects of the marital act, allowing unity in different windows than procreation?

Thanks for your help, this is not meant to frustrate.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
similarly why would some irregular cycles exist if God’s master plan involves man figuring out how to manipulate the female cycle? Not that I see this paragraph as relevant either, I am probably mis understanding you on this

Maybe just a poor choice of words here, but NFP does nothing to manipulate the cycle. It simply allows the woman to become aware of her fertile and infertile times.

Maybe the female embrace or unity cycle? does NFP not require unity now fall in a cycles? Actually, you are correct but so is this post, which is yet another unresolved issue. It should have been written closer to " allowing man to achieve his ____ goals by synchronizing with the female ministration cycle*" But thank you for your assistance, once all this issues are properly intertwined I hope we have a resolution.

*What man’s goals are is one of the issues also. ( procreative, unity, gratification, other)

 

[setter]

Maybe the female embrace or unity cycle? does NFP not require unity now fall in a cycles? Actually, you are correct but so is this post, which is yet another unresolved issue. It should have been written closer to " allowing man to achieve his ____ goals by synchronizing with the female ministration cycle*" But thank you for your assistance, once all this issues are properly intertwined I hope we have a resolution.

*What man’s goals are is one of the issues also. ( procreative, unity, gratification, other)

The husband’s one goal should be self-mastery so his fertility in the conjugal act can truly be a beloved-focused, Christ-centered gift.

 

[Joya]

After we had our son and had been married for about 15 years, we decided that vasectomy was simply the best choice for us, and we have never regretted it.

Do you really want to force NFP on every couple in every situation? Pregnancy or NFP? Are those really the only options? Thank goodness I don’t have to worry about it anymore. I feel sorry young for couples who have to deal with this kind of pressure from the Catholic church.

Priscilla Ann,

If you and your husband feel that the vasectomy was the right decision for you both and was made in good conscience, then why, may I ask, do you argue with Catholics on this board who are faithful to the Church’s teaching??? I have read your other posts and threads on NFP, and must admit, that while I find your questions and concerns perfectly legitimate, your attitude and tone are very offensive to me. You come across as elitist and antagonistic, but deep down I sense distress and confusion. I am sorry if I sound harsh here, but I do think you need to reconsider how you are communicating about this sensitive subject.

In addition, I have never found anyone on this board who pressures others to use NFP. Quite the contrary. Most posters have the sincerity and willingness to explain their beliefs in a charitable and kind way.

What I ultimately sense from your posts is that perhaps you have some misgivings about the way you and your husband handled family planning decisions in your marriage and you are now putting up a fight to prove all of us NFP users wrong to console your own mental/emotional distress. Please consider what I am saying here and perhaps look into talking to someone about the turmoil we can all sense you are experiencing.

As for my own personal experience, I used contraceptive methods the first year and a half of marriage before switching to NFP. In short, the method is so beautiful, I cannot imagine going back to those devices. It made a difference in our marriage and we have highly recommended it to our engaged relatives and friends. I know that not all priests and Catholics agree with my position on NFP, but I thought my view was still worth sharing.

Please do not look down or negatively on this beautiful Church teaching that treats husband and wife and their offspring with the utmost dignity and respect. If you are satisfied with your decision, that is fine, but please do reconsider how you are coming across to us if you wish to continue the dialogue.

Thanks and God bless you.

 

[fix]

The earlier posts note that in the Old Testament sex outside of marriage was allowed of God’s chosen men, and in some case procreation nor unity appears to resemble the objective ?

That may be your view, but you still have no proof God allowed contraception.

Why should I. It is the Church not I differentiating the acts and conditions.

You used the term gratification. What is ungratifying about authentic love and obeying Christ?

NFP separates the sperm and the egg by timing, other wise NFP has no affect, success, or use.

Every second a couple is not having sex is separating egg and sperm. Does that mean eating lunch with one’s wife is contraception?

The 80 year olds separate the sperm and egg through absence of an egg. I think others site this of an example of when the natural action of measuring the female body is conspicuously absent. But that does not matter to me.

The act of sex must be objectively open to life even if subjectively one is infertile.
*

That one is infertile does not separate being ------ procreative.

God either made the infertile period which includes menstruation for unity or he did not. The old law deals with that issue (menstruation) also. Why there are 3 condition (fertile, infertile non menstruation, infertile menstruation) spread into 4 time windows is unknown to me, but it seems as an unlike base for NFP, because man existed a long time without ability to fulfill God’s plan for unity in marriage, separated from procreation via NFP methods?

It was not until recent history we understood how the cycle worked. Now that we know we can use that information.

Is that Using today’s knowledge and tools (thermometer, ect) we can predict fertile periods with enough accuracy to use this information only as a means to avoid pregnancy? As in poor people who lived before now? Or thank goodness we are not at the mercy of nature any longer?

You can use it to get pregnant or treat pathology. What is your point?

uh is the object of NFP not to intentionally break the two aspects of the marital act, allowing unity in different windows than procreation?

Again, the use of the term procreative does not mean conception must be likely to occur. That is why they often say “open to life”. It means the act is objectively procreative. Capable of producing life even if subjectively one is infertile.

 

[setter]

Priscilla Ann,

If you and your husband feel that the vasectomy was the right decision for you both and was made in good conscience, then why, may I ask, do you argue with Catholics on this board who are faithful to the Church’s teaching??? I have read your other posts and threads on NFP, and must admit, that while I find your questions and concerns perfectly legitimate, your attitude and tone are very offensive to me. You come across as elitist and antagonistic, but deep down I sense distress and confusion. I am sorry if I sound harsh here, but I do think you need to reconsider how you are communicating about this sensitive subject.

In addition, I have never found anyone on this board who pressures others to use NFP. Quite the contrary. Most posters have the sincerity and willingness to explain their beliefs in a charitable and kind way.

What I ultimately sense from your posts is that perhaps you have some misgivings about the way you and your husband handled family planning decisions in your marriage and you are now putting up a fight to prove all of us NFP users wrong to console your own mental/emotional distress. Please consider what I am saying here and perhaps look into talking to someone about the turmoil we can all sense you are experiencing.

As for my own personal experience, I used contraceptive methods the first year and a half of marriage before switching to NFP. In short, the method is so beautiful, I cannot imagine going back to those devices. It made a difference in our marriage and we have highly recommended it to our engaged relatives and friends. I know that not all priests and Catholics agree with my position on NFP, but I thought my view was still worth sharing.

Please do not look down or negatively on this beautiful Church teaching that treats husband and wife and their offspring with the utmost dignity and respect. If you are satisfied with your decision, that is fine, but please do reconsider how you are coming across to us if you wish to continue the dialogue.

Thanks and God bless you.

A very insightful, charitable and extending post to one who has strayed from the truth of the Church. Let’s hope and pray that this wayward couple will respond to the grace for repentance and conversion and return to the Lord in living out in fidelity their sacramental vows made before God.

**2363 **The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. (CCC)

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world. (CCC)

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 (CCC)

 

[KCT]

As I read posts regarding Natural Family Planning, it occurs to me that NFP is anything but natural. quote]

There’s a difference between ‘natural’ and ‘in accord with natural law’. Natural Law has to do with living in accord with the way we are created. We were created w/ fertile and infertile times, so NFP is in accord w/ Natural Law. —KCT

 

[Texas_Roofer]

( ref #54 )
Thanks fix
I am sure you have best intentions but there is little I can do with this post The Law of God would be transcendent through time and always consistent. So I need a Law which was practiced by Adam & Eve, does not violate the actions of the men of God in the Old Testament, is continuous through the New Testament and does not violate the church teaching. NFP appears to contridict the "“for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund” *so I must at this time reject it.

*- Pope Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” Section 11

 

[Pug]

and does not violate the church teaching. NFP appears to contridict the ""for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund"* so I must at this time reject it.

Are you saying that in nfp, the couple is infertile at a certain time, and the problem is that this is at least partly due to causes that the will of the couple influenced, and then they have relations in that time?

Or are you saying that in nfp the infertile time comes along, and the problem is that the will of the couple is such that it is glad that the infertile time came along, and then they have relations in that time?

These are two completely different things. I do not see how the first applies for nfp. There is nothing the couple does or wills with the temps and charts that causes an alteration in the infertile times or tries to change them. The goal is discovery of what is, not changing what is. I only see how the second could apply. A couple might be glad when the infertile time rolls around. Which of the two do you mean?

 

[fix]

( ref #54 )
Thanks fix
I am sure you have best intentions but there is little I can do with this post The Law of God would be transcendent through time and always consistent. So I need a Law which was practiced by Adam & Eve, does not violate the actions of the men of God in the Old Testament, is continuous through the New Testament and does not violate the church teaching.

You have it. The universal and ordinary magisterium has always said contraception is wrong and this can be traced back to the OT.

NFP appears to contridict the ""for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund"* so I must at this time reject it.

*- Pope Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” Section 11

HUH? That does not include intentional infertility like sterilizing oneself through surgery, or pills, or devices, or withdrawing.