NFP marketing, is promoting it right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByWhatAuthority
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contraception is a form of birth control, NFP is a form of birth control, but they are not, and can’t ever be the same things. Contraception is using an external means to hinder sperm and egg contact. NFP reduces the chances of sperm and egg contact by only having sex when there’s naturally no egg available. There’s a huge difference.

I personally think it’s great that NFP is being marketed in the secular world. If we believe that ARTIFICIAL birth control is immoral, why wouldn’t we want to see more people, Catholic or not, moving away from it.
 
J_Peterson said:
After birth, my wife is able to feel herself ovulate.
Click to expand...
I occasionally have this. In fact, a few months ago, I had what I can only describe as a sort of ovarian fireworks show, with a “pop pop pop pop pop” sensation that went on in bursts for hours. (What can I say–being a 40-something woman is weird.)

That seemed liked a great night for Netflix. Lord only knows what would have happened otherwise.


Edited to add: Not that babies (even higher order multiple babies) are not a precious gift, blah blah blah–but you’ll notice that the mortality figures for these babies are very high, and the medical measures necessary to preserve that sort of pregnancy would make it difficult to care adequately for existing children.


Kate Gosselin (the sextuplet mom) went on bed rest at 7 weeks gestation, was hospitalized at 20 weeks, and delivered the babies at 30 weeks.
 
Last edited:
There are so many women who are sick and tired of the damage done by the hormonal contraceptives, I was one of them many many years ago. Did not have the internet, I was not Catholic, but, I did have high school biology (gone the way of the dodo sadly). I knew that if my body was going through this process every month, there had to be a way to know it. Began to pay attention and lookie there, there were signs!

After I became Catholic and learned the official methods, Creighton/Billings made sense because I was already aware of the mucous changes. Creighton simply added to what I already knew. Because I am one of those women who can feel ovulation, fertility awareness was just part of my life, like knowing if my nose is congested or my heart is racing.

All young women should be taught to know their bodies, it is empowering and lets her have a better grasp of her overall health.

I hope that the “Sweetening The Pill” documentary gets funded. FAM or Fertility Awareness Methods are becoming more and more mainstream and that is good for everyone
 
PaulinVA said:
Uhm, almost every one of your posts that says this reason or that reason is not a valid reason to abstain.
Click to expand...
Please show me where you think I did that !! I never said anyone’s reason was invalid. I only questioned a hypothetical , 'I won’t look good in my bikini ’ and maybe a few other hypothetical non serious reasons to avoid.
 
ByWhatAuthority, here are just a few of your posts…

If you read Humanae Vitae it rather clearly states that Catholic couples should only use NFP as a last resort for “Grave or serious reasons”.

NFP is church teaching? Are you sure about that? I thought the Church always taught that married couples must be open to having babies. NFP/abstinence was mentioned as a solution to “grave or serious reasons” to prevent a possible pregnancy.

Most people can’t afford children. I would not exist today if my parents were practicing "responsible parenthood " by today’s new catholic standards.

It’s not NFP so much as it’s the philosophy that seems to have undermined the teaching that Catholics should be open to having children.

God provides when we do His will.

And as I said in the post from a long time ago on SD. If that mother had followed the doctors orders, she would not have been wrong by any means. BUT she instead trusted in God and was rewarded for her trust.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
Please show me where the pre NFP church taught that couples should be "prudent " in regards to regulating the numbers of children they had. Maybe I’ve been wrong this whole time about the Churches teaching on the matter? That accepting children as blessings (no matter the number God wants to bless you with) was something married couples had to promise to do.
Click to expand...
Catholicism has much to say about the relationship between love and responsibility that you are missing. It’s difficult to imagine that prudence is left at the doorstep of marriage as you are suggesting. Being responsible requires the virtue of prudence.

Christian responsibility is not mere slavery to rules. This is why the Church recognizes that a child is not necessary or required with every sex act, but that sexuality be open to procreation. A couple is not responsible to fulfill the exhortation to be fruitful in a fundamentalist fashion as you are asserting. The couple discerns, thinks, prays hopefully, and plans wisely.

And yes, children are accepted as wonderful blessings.
 
Last edited:
I still haven’t seen anything from anyone here that proves that the pre nfp church was teaching couples to be “prudent” about the number of children they conceived. I believe these thoughts are a modern phenomenon in the Catholic Church. I think it must be very confusing for couples to be given mixed info on this. Either nfp is a okay to use all the time for any reason, in place of abc. Or it’s something that could be sinful if the mentality is that of a contraceptive nature. If it is the later of the two; I think it would be a good thing for the Church to better define the terms of use, so to speak. I for one would like to know if something I was investing myself in to such a degree had a chance of being sinful.
Maybe looking good in that bikini is a very serious and grave reason for me to abstain. It could seriously impact my social outlook and mental health to ruin my figure to such a drastic degree. ( you’d laugh out loud if you knew me) I guess depending on the couple, any reason could fall under the latest guidelines. ANY reason can be “just”.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
I still haven’t seen anything from anyone here that proves that the pre nfp church was teaching couples to be “prudent” about the number of children they conceived. I believe these thoughts are a modern phenomenon in the Catholic Church. I think it must be very confusing for couples to be given mixed info on this. Either nfp is a okay to use all the time for any reason, in place of abc. Or it’s something that could be sinful if the mentality is that of a contraceptive nature. If it is the later of the two; I think it would be a good thing for the Church to better define the terms of use, so to speak. I for one would like to know if something I was investing myself in to such a degree had a chance of being sinful.
Click to expand...
ByWhatAuthority said:
Maybe looking good in that bikini is a very serious and grave reason for me to abstain. It could seriously impact my social outlook and mental health to ruin my figure to such a drastic degree. ( you’d laugh out loud if you knew me) I guess depending on the couple, any reason could fall under the latest guidelines. ANY reason can be “just”.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. Read through the 360 previous posts.
 
PaulinVA said:
Asked and answered. Read through the 360 previous posts.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. The questions remain. If nfp can be sinful, is it right for the church to market it as a form of Catholic contraception without defining the terms of use? Yes, everyone is different but the sinful nature of a contraceptive mentality remains the same.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
40.png
PaulinVA:
Asked and answered. Read through the 360 previous posts.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. The questions remain. If nfp can be sinful, is it right for the church to market it as a form of Catholic contraception without defining the terms of use? Yes, everyone is different but the sinful nature of a contraceptive mentality remains the same.
Click to expand...
NFP is not contraception.
Morality is the evaluation of human acts.
Contraception is just what the word means: an act that that thwarts the conception of children.
Having sex in the normal way is not thwarting conception.
Not having sex is not acting, so…fairly self explanatory there…

By contrast, wearing a condom during a sex act is thwarting the natural act. In that case, you participate in a sex act, and the course of that act is against (contra) conception.

You are assuming ill-will of the couple in every sex act that does not result in children.
 
Last edited:
ByWhatAuthority said:
Therein lies the problem. The questions remain. If nfp can be sinful, is it right for the church to market it as a form of Catholic contraception without defining the terms of use? Yes, everyone is different but the sinful nature of a contraceptive mentality remains the same.
Click to expand...
Stop.

Food can be sinful if you use it gluttonously. However, the Church actually distributes food to people!

I’m sorry that the ambiguity creates problems for you. If you do not want to use NFP, then do not. However, if others do, do not say they are using it incorrectly, for the exact reason that there is ambiguity - there is no list, so YOU CAN NOT JUDGE others on their use.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
40.png
PaulinVA:
Asked and answered. Read through the 360 previous posts.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. The questions remain. If nfp can be sinful, is it right for the church to market it as a form of Catholic contraception without defining the terms of use? Yes, everyone is different but the sinful nature of a contraceptive mentality remains the same.
Click to expand...
I have never seen the Church market NFP as “a form of Catholic contraception.”

That the Church offers NFP as an option to couples should show you that it is a good thing. The Church is not going to offer something bad.

People can misuse NFP - it is a tool and tools can be misused. But you would have to show me something concrete that shows the Church marketing it as “Catholic-approved” contraception. It’s not. In fact, when my husband and I took our NFP classes before getting married, the instructing couple told us many times that NFP can have very valuable information for the couple, particularly the woman, in identifying other health issues that may be interfering with fertility that she might not even be aware of. To say that NFP is “a form of Catholic contraception” is a misconception that others have, but the Church has never said that.

The Church has always said (as many previous posters have pointed out repeatedly) that it is something that can be used in the presence of just reasons. What is a “just reason” for another couple is not for you or me to decide - you can only evaluate the reasons that you and your spouse have for using (or not using) NFP.
 
Last edited:
ByWhatAuthority said:
40.png
PaulinVA:
Asked and answered. Read through the 360 previous posts.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. The questions remain. If nfp can be sinful, is it right for the church to market it as a form of Catholic contraception without defining the terms of use? Yes, everyone is different but the sinful nature of a contraceptive mentality remains the same.
Click to expand...
The problem here is you and your agendas
 
Last edited:
Nfp is contraception in that if you are practicing it to avoid you are anti conception. Anti= contra or against conception. Anyway, I was talking about the " mentality" behind choosing not to have a child. The “contraceptive mentality”. Not nfp equals contraception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top