NFP - Is it really natural?

[UKcatholicGuy]

As I read posts regarding Natural Family Planning, it occurs to me that NFP is anything but natural. Temperature taking, mucus checking, avoiding sex on certain predetermined days…what is natural about any of this?

I have to admit that I never used NFP; and from what I’ve learned here, I never would have. It sounds completely unnatural to me!

Amen!

All the Church has ever officially said regarding NFP (actually, it never even names NFP, but only ‘recourse to the infertile period’) is that it can be permissable in grave situations, such as when the wife’s health would be put in danger if she were to conceive at that time.

Although this is all the Church has ever said on the matter (most recently in Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae), there are many otherwise-orthodox Catholics who talk about NFP like it’s this wonderful thing that every good Catholic couple should be practicing. This, of course, is dangerous advice, because NFP, while it is certainly NOT the same thing as contracpetion, can be immoral when used without a grave or justified reason. Yet we never hear of the “grave reason” requirement from NFP-happy Catholics today. I don’t mean to judge those Catholics who do promote NFP, because I know they are doing it in good faith. They see that 98% of all Catholics are using artificial birth control, and they want to change this. While that is certainly praiseworthy, it would be another mistake to suggest using NFP for the rest of one’s life for no reason or any reason.

The truth is really quite simple: Catholic couples are called to be open to life at all times. That means, they should have marital relations and let God decide whether or not He wants to bless them with children. If, however, for a grave reason, the couple finds themselves in a situation in which having another child-- either for the time being or indefinitely-- would be truly harmful, they may have recourse to NFP. Forthermore, they should not decide on their own whether their reason is truly a grave reason. Rather, they should seek the advice of a good, holy, orthodox priest and let him decide. This is how the Church wants NFP practiced, as I was told by a good and holy priest.

 

[Pug]

All the Church has ever officially said regarding NFP (actually, it never even names NFP, but only ‘recourse to the infertile period’) is that it can be permissable in grave situations, such as when the wife’s health would be put in danger if she were to conceive at that time.

…we never hear of the “grave reason” requirement from NFP-happy Catholics today.

…Forthermore, they should not decide on their own whether their reason is truly a grave reason. Rather, they should seek the advice of a good, holy, orthodox priest and let him decide.

Normally, a basic Catholic would consider the information that they find in the CCC to be official. It does not use the word “grave” to describe the reasons for using it. It requires only that “just reasons” be met. These are two different standards. It is likely that the NFP crowd is following what they read in the CCC and that is why they don’t use the word “grave”.

CCC:

A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.

Also, the CCC says it encourages good things.

CCC:

These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.

The CCC uses language a bit beyond infertile periods, and mentions those observations (like charting, I assume).

CCC:

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

I do agree that there is no recent encyclical about the topic, not that comes to mind after HV, anyway. But the NFP folks are getting their tone from CCC 2368-2370 and the like, which is reasonable to do. Also, I don’t think it is required to ask the priest what you must do. Naturally, seek his counsel if you desire.

 

[LittleDeb]

Amen!

All the Church has ever officially said regarding NFP (actually, it never even names NFP, but only ‘recourse to the infertile period’) is that it can be permissable in grave situations, such as when the wife’s health would be put in danger if she were to conceive at that time.

Although this is all the Church has ever said on the matter (most recently in Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae), there are many otherwise-orthodox Catholics who talk about NFP like it’s this wonderful thing that every good Catholic couple should be practicing. This, of course, is dangerous advice, because NFP, while it is certainly NOT the same thing as contracpetion, can be immoral when used without a grave or justified reason. Yet we never hear of the “grave reason” requirement from NFP-happy Catholics today. I don’t mean to judge those Catholics who do promote NFP, because I know they are doing it in good faith. They see that 98% of all Catholics are using artificial birth control, and they want to change this. While that is certainly praiseworthy, it would be another mistake to suggest using NFP for the rest of one’s life for no reason or any reason.

The truth is really quite simple: Catholic couples are called to be open to life at all times. That means, they should have marital relations and let God decide whether or not He wants to bless them with children. If, however, for a grave reason, the couple finds themselves in a situation in which having another child-- either for the time being or indefinitely-- would be truly harmful, they may have recourse to NFP. Forthermore, they should not decide on their own whether their reason is truly a grave reason. Rather, they should seek the advice of a good, holy, orthodox priest and let him decide. This is how the Church wants NFP practiced, as I was told by a good and holy priest.

While I see where you are trying to go with this, I disagree on many points. I had wanted to stay out of this thread because of my love for NFP, but I have decided to post anyway. NFP saved my fertility. NFP is information.

Many people think like you, that the charting is the action. It isn’t. The marital union is the action. Since breast-feeding can be a major part of NFP, it doesn’t follow that one must have a “grave reason to breast-feed.” Since healing female fertility is another major part of NFP, one doesn’t need grave reason to heal either. One doesn’t even need grave reason to chart. Charting is very helpful in determining due dates, predicting and understanding menopause and of course in my case, helping to diagnose thyroid and other health issues.

** There is only one thing that requires grave reason: intentional abstinence during fertility.**

Further, the couple are the only ones involved in determining grave reason. The priest must help the couple to individually form their consciences, but it is up to the couple and God when the couple engages in the marital act. Since the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament, they are the ones who must decide. The priest is a witness for The Church.

My experience is those who find charting unnatural have trouble with the ‘ick factor’ in a lot of other natural things.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

While I see where you are trying to go with this, I disagree on many points. I had wanted to stay out of this thread because of my love for NFP, but I have decided to post anyway. NFP saved my fertility. NFP is information.

Many people think like you, that the charting is the action. It isn’t. The marital union is the action. Since breast-feeding can be a major part of NFP, it doesn’t follow that one must have a “grave reason to breast-feed.” Since healing female fertility is another major part of NFP, one doesn’t need grave reason to heal either. One doesn’t even need grave reason to chart. Charting is very helpful in determining due dates, predicting and understanding menopause and of course in my case, helping to diagnose thyroid and other health issues.

** There is only one thing that requires grave reason: intentional abstinence during fertility.**

Further, the couple are the only ones involved in determining grave reason. The priest must help the couple to individually form their consciences, but it is up to the couple and God when the couple engages in the marital act. Since the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament, they are the ones who must decide. The priest is a witness for The Church.

My experience is those who find charting unnatural have trouble with the ‘ick factor’ in a lot of other natural things.

LittleDeb
Sorry to hear you feel uncomfortable in the thread. I just wanted to add there are a lot of issues concerning NFP. NFP not being a form of contraceptive is just one. Decision to postpone child bearing arise from various Church teachings and writings not NFP. Whether NFP is fulfilling God’s Law is the real issue. There are no doubts about the Church rules. I am glad your current situation is good, and wish you well. The NFP issues are in no way personal issues against or for any individual. How the issues synchronize with God’s Law is the understanding we are looking for.

 

[setter]

Whether NFP is fulfilling God’s Law is the real issus.

NFP alone (of all forms of birth control) cooperates and respects God’s design for fertility cycles and engages man’s rational ability to willfully embrace discernment and self-mastery in the regulation of birth.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

NFP alone (of all forms of birth control) cooperates and respects God’s design for fertility cycles and engages man’s rational ability to willfully embrace discernment and self-mastery in the regulation of birth.

Thanks but again this allows man to willfully and intently engage in acts which are designed to avoid procreation. This allows the actions (means) and the will (intent) to be free of moral review. It also redefines contraception as these actions to prevent pregnancy must be ruled as not contraceptive. But I thank you for your help.

 

[fix]

Thanks but again this allows man to willfully and intently engage in acts which are designed to avoid procreation.

It allows one to avoid conception. One is still open to procreation.
The act does not have to be likely to conceive to be both unitive and procreative.

This allows the actions (means) and the will (intent) to be free of moral review. It also redefines contraception as these actions to prevent pregnancy must be ruled as not contraceptive. But I thank you for your help.

It does not redefine contraception. Contraception specfically involves frustrating the procreative aspect of the act, whether conception is likely or not.

 

[renee1258]

This blog post might be helpful… Sorry about formatting when I copied and pasted…

Addressing NFP in American reproductive medicine

I had a recent conversation with a commenter “Aimee” on my blog. She addressed several issues the general public, who may not be Catholic or have no interest in Catholicism and may or may not have a personal interest in natural family planning such as the Billings Ovulation Method or more secular methods from Taking Charge of Your Fertility, which refers to the practice as Fertility Awareness Method, usually such methods are termed “BOM” or “FAM”.
Also I’ve been in reflection on how to address persons who have undergone sterilization procedures, I hope to get across that it is not the person I’m angry at but the medical community who isn’t taking full advantage of the medical research natural family planning has brought over the past 50 years. I don’t want to shame people for acts they couldn’t possibly have full knowledge of, and well I don’t want to shame people at all. My goal is to move forward, and to give women even if it may not be ourselves a better understanding of our fertility and sexuality. That indeed from a medical point of view and a personal understanding we can do a lot better then what is offered to us from mainstream American reproductive medicine.
Billings’

motto is *“Knowledge that every woman ought to have”.*The numerous signs and indicators a women’s body produces within her cycle is more then just for family planning, but also for proper medical diagnosis and better treatment of our sexual bodies without drastic measures. Toni Weschler the author of TCOYF states this….

It is unfortunate that the Fertility Awareness Method is even referred to as a method, because in reality, it should be seen as a fundamental life skill that all women should learn, just as they are now taught basic feminine hygiene. This is because the practical knowledge women glean from charting their cycles will aid them from puberty to menopause, and all life phases in between.
While this vital information has been slow to disperse into the mainstream, the good news is that things are finally starting to change. A grassroots movement has begun to spread among women everywhere, which I would like to think is reforming women’s health one fertility chart at a time.

Also a great resource to understand Catholic teaching on Natural Family Planning is from a Billling Ovulation Instructor, Sara Fox Peterson. Sara Fox Peterson is a full time mother, a writer and a certified teacher of the Billings Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning. She holds a BS in biology and an MS in human physiology, both from Georgetown University, and lives in Maryland with her husband and children. She has multiple columns explaining how the Catholic understanding of sexuality of women and men, is truly integrated with such knowledge and addresses commonly asked questions from non-Catholics and Catholics on why such information is invaluable to everyone.
Here are some titles to her columns….
An Open Question
Catholic Contraception?
What if It’s Too Late?
What’s the Difference
Medical Exceptions
The People Who Actually Do This
The Pill: Questions and Answers

I hope this helps readers. I realize I posted a lot of information. This undestanding doesn’t happen overnight, so I’m not upset if someone disagrees with me because for most internalizing and digesting this knowledge takes time.

 

[setter]

Thanks but again this allows man to willfully and intently engage in acts which are designed to avoid procreation. This allows the actions (means) and the will (intent) to be free of moral review. It also redefines contraception as these actions **to prevent pregnancy **must be ruled as not contraceptive. But I thank you for your help.

“These actions” are radically different in meaning and intent (when properly used) and content. NFP to “avoid pregnancy” does not in any way “act against” the procreative good. ABC (in any form) directly “acts against” and is hostile to the procreative good. The difference is readily evident as one is intrinsically evil (*acting against *an intrinsic good) and the other respects and cooperates with the procreative good entrusted to the couple in the covenant of love.

I suggest that you re-check your semantics, as you are the one issuing a redefinition of what contraception is based on an incorrect undertanding:

contraception, defn; –noun: the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

“These actions” are radically different in meaning and intent (when properly used) and content. NFP to “avoid pregnancy” does not in any way “act against” the procreative good. ABC (in any form) directly “acts against” and is hostile to the procreative good. The difference is readily evident as one is intrinsically evil (*acting against *an intrinsic good) and the other respects and cooperates with the procreative good entrusted to the couple in the covenant of love.

I suggest that you re-check your semantics, as you are the one issuing a redefinition of what contraception is based on an incorrect undertanding:

contraception, defn; –noun: the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

If we use your words is NFP a “deliberate prevention of conception” ?

 

[LittleDeb]

If we use your words is NFP a “deliberate prevention of conception” ?

Nope. Otherwise we would all be sinning as we type our responses on these boards. Since, as we type we are “deliberately preventing conception” by that standard. No one is trying to conceive while typing. (At least I certainly hope not! )

Abstinence is not a “deliberate prevention of conception.” Nothing involved in abstinence has the remotest chance of resulting in conception.

 

[setter]

If we use your words is NFP a “deliberate prevention of conception” ?

NFP does not seek to deliberately prevent, i.e., actively act against, as in “contra-”, contracept the pro-creative potential of the conjugal act.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Really, A couple practicing NFP have exactly the same chance of conception as a couple not practicing any birth control?

 

[setter]

Really, A couple practicing NFP have exactly the same chance of conception as a couple not practicing any birth control?

A NFP practicing couple has the same measure of acting against, i.e., contracepting, as a couple not practicing any birth control. No couple introducing ABC into the marital act claim say the same.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A NFP practicing couple has the same measure of acting against, i.e., contracepting, as a couple not practicing any birth control. No couple introducing ABC into the marital act claim say the same.

What?

Either NFP increases, decreases, or has no affect on birth control rates, which is it?

 

[setter]

What?

Either NFP increases, decreases, or has no affect on birth control rates, which is it?

It depends upon how each seperate couple is using NFP …something which cannot be equally said of the ABC using couple.

I believe that your over emphasis on the ends has obscurred the obvious moral difference in the means between NFP and ABC.

 

[fix]

If we use your words is NFP a “deliberate prevention of conception” ?

The act of intercourse cannot be altered to render it sterile. Having intercourse during times when the woman is not fertile is not rendering the act of intercourse sterile. It is still objectively procreative. Nothing in the act is frustrated.

 

[Pug]

What?

Either NFP increases, decreases, or has no affect on birth control rates, which is it?

Someone using nfp is confronted with a whole month of fertility rates. Tuesday we will be 10% fertile. Friday we will be 40% fertile. Then the couple uses that info to make decisions. When Tuesday rolls around, they either choose to have sex at the 10% rate or they choose not to have sex. The 10% figure is never altered. It is what it naturally is. This is what they mean by not altering fertility.

Someone using ABC sees that 10% rate and tries to lower it, to make Tuesday be a day when it is only 1% instead, say by using the pill or wearing an IUD.

What you are saying is that they are changing the fertility of their next sexual act, by making their next sexual act be on Tuesday, when if they hadn’t cared about nfp, they normally would have had their next sexual act on Friday. You have to look at it by days. Did they change their natural fertility on any day? No, they didn’t. They just elected not to have sex, based on information about their natural, given fertility rates that day. No one is obligated to have sex on any particular day. We are free to not have sex on a given day. But we cannot refuse to have sex for a long time, without a corresponding reason.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Someone using nfp is confronted with a whole month of fertility rates. Tuesday we will be 10% fertile. Friday we will be 40% fertile. Then the couple uses that info to make decisions. When Tuesday rolls around, they either choose to have sex at the 10% rate or they choose not to have sex. The 10% figure is never altered. It is what it naturally is. This is what they mean by not altering fertility.

Someone using ABC sees that 10% rate and tries to lower it, to make Tuesday be a day when it is only 1% instead, say by using the pill or wearing an IUD.

What you are saying is that they are changing the fertility of their next sexual act, by making their next sexual act be on Tuesday, when if they hadn’t cared about nfp, they normally would have had their next sexual act on Friday. You have to look at it by days. Did they change their natural fertility on any day? No, they didn’t. ***They just elected ***not to have sex, based on information about their natural, given fertility rates that day. No one is obligated to have sex on any particular day. We are free to not have sex on a given day. But we cannot refuse to have sex for a long time, without a corresponding reason.

Thanks, but what is the range of % fertile? And how could one elect under those circumstances?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It depends upon how each seperate couple is using NFP …something which cannot be equally said of the ABC using couple.

I believe that your over emphasis on the ends has obscurred the obvious moral difference in the means between NFP and ABC.

Ends - can you define the “ends” ?
Means - you mean the method which matches the ***will ***of the couple?