NFP question

[MaryAnne77]

I think most people will agree that it’s important that women be given the knowledge/power to not get pregnant every 18 months of their fertile married life - for myriad reasons. The Catholic Church states that the licit way of spacing out or putting off pregnancies is either abstinence (for single people) or NFP (for those who are married.)

Of course, in order to use NFP appropriately, one must have a good working knowledge of human biology and the phenomenon of a woman’s cycle. For most of human history, we did not have things like basal thermometers, ovulation test strips, and the Couple to Couple League. We did not have much knowledge about how the female reproductive cycle functioned or how to know when one was fertile. The Billings Method was invented in the 1950s.

What were Catholic women supposed to do for fertility management prior to the advent of NFP? My Catholic great-grandmother died after giving birth to her 7th child in 11 years. Surely, had she had the knowledge to do so, she might not have had such a prolific birthing career, or at least spaced the babies in a safer way. I’m just wondering if there was ANY licit way to space pregnancies prior to modern knowledge about the female body.

If, as time goes on, we learn even more about the way the body and reproductive cycle works, might there be even more licit ways to prevent pregnancy added to the list?

 

[Samuel63]

How about self control.

 

[if_youCthispray]

Abstain.

Crazy isnt it people having sex for procreative reasons first and pleasure second.
/end sarcasm

 

[1ke]

What were Catholic women supposed to do for fertility management prior to the advent of NFP?

Abstain if they had a serious reason to *avoid *pregnancy.

Use ecological breastfeeding for child spacing.

My Catholic great-grandmother died after giving birth to her 7th child in 11 years. Surely, had she had the knowledge to do so, she might not have had such a prolific birthing career, or at least spaced the babies in a safer way. I’m just wondering if there was ANY licit way to space pregnancies prior to modern knowledge about the female body.

Certainly. Abstinence.

 

[Calliso]

How about self control.

I find this rather harsh. Just because I couple wants to have a healthy regular sex life doesn;t mean they lack self control. I mean abstaining for years at a time is not healthy for any marriage.

 

[davidv]

I find this rather harsh. Just because I couple wants to have a healthy regular sex life doesn;t mean they lack self control. I mean abstaining for years at a time is not healthy for any marriage.

Who says? Is mortal sin a viable option? Why?

 

[Calliso]

Abstain if they had a serious reason to *avoid *pregnancy.

Use ecological breastfeeding for child spacing.

Certainly. Abstinence.

Isn;t breastfeeding not super reliable for avoiding pregnancy? I mean if one is really needing avoid and all.

 

[Calliso]

Who says? Is mortal sin a viable option? Why?

Did I say anything about commiting mortal sins? I didn;t say they should use a pill or a condom I donlt personally see anything sinful about either but in my post I mentioned nothing about either thing. As for the first question says me who is living in a sexless marriage and plenty of other people who are living in very low or or no sex marriages.

 

[davidv]

Did I say anything about commiting mortal sins? I didn;t say they should use a pill or a condom I donlt personally see anything sinful about either but in my post I mentioned nothing about either thing. As for the first question says me who is living in a sexless marriage and plenty of other people who are living in very low or or no sex marriages.

Besides NFP and abstinence, what other non-sinful options are there? Seems too me that too high a value is being placed on sex as the ingredient for a loving relationship with ones spouse.

 

[Joan1969]

Hi to all,

I think the question asked here is a very good one, though of course it does not call into question the Church’s teaching on contraception. Still, pat answers like simply saying “self control” seem to indicate a certain lack of understanding for the human condition. It’s not necessarily as straightforward as that.

My best suggestion is that, even though the struggles of families who had many closely spaced children may have been great, contraception would have been far and a way a greater evil, and would not have been very effective in those days anyway. The “classic” means of contraception mentioned in the Bible was withdrawl after all, a notoriously iffy method at best. So it’s not like there were any obvious alternatives out there.

Before the 20th century, large families were mostly necessary for prosperity and security, especially among working people. There was a reason most people really wanted lots of kids in those days, and it really wasn’t merely superior virtue. Women did sadly die in the process (as did lots of babies), but then the death rate in general was higher in those days and that was just the way it was all around.

It seems to me that looking at my own family’s history that things started changing in a big way starting after WWI or so. Both my (Protestant) grandmothers had large families, and both really struggled gravely with that, probably more than previous generations had. The times and expectations were changing. So it was God’s providence that NFP cam along when it did.

Just my ideas on a really tough topic.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Calliso]

Besides NFP and abstinence, what other non-sinful options are there? Seems too me that too high a value is being placed on sex as the ingredient for a loving relationship with ones spouse.

Well ok good point if one believes all other options are sinful then NFP and abstinence are the only options. I should note I donlt think that occasional abstienence is unhealthy for a marriage I am mainly talking about long term. Personally I think it is easy to put too little value of sex in a marriage. I am not talking about the pleasure aspect either I am talking about the bonding aspect. Also I am not saying that one cannot have a loving realtionship without sex. I mean some people have no choice for instance because of illness. But for your average married couple no sex equals bad news for the marriage.

 

[Calliso]

Hi to all,

I think the question asked here is a very good one, though of course it does not call into question the Church’s teaching on contraception. Still, pat answers like simply saying “self control” seem to indicate a certain lack of understanding for the human condition. It’s not necessarily as straightforward as that.

My best suggestion is that, even though the struggles of families who had many closely spaced children may have been great, contraception would have been far and a way a greater evil, and would not have been very effective in those days anyway. The “classic” means of contraception mentioned in the Bible was withdrawl after all, a notoriously iffy method at best. So it’s not like there were any obvious alternatives out there.

Before the 20th century, large families were mostly necessary for prosperity and security, especially among working people. There was a reason most people really wanted lots of kids in those days, and it really wasn’t merely superior virtue. Women did sadly die in the process (as did lots of babies), but then the death rate in general was higher in those days and that was just the way it was all around.

It seems to me that looking at my own family’s history that things started changing in a big way starting after WWI or so. Both my (Protestant) grandmothers had large families, and both really struggled gravely with that, probably more than previous generations had. The times and expectations were changing. So it was God’s providence that NFP cam along when it did.

Just my ideas on a really tough topic.

God Bless,
Joan

Actually apparently in bibical times or at least a long long time before modern times there was a plant so often used for contraception that it is extinct now. Of course other then that yeah withdrawal or abstienence would have been the only option. I think the first condoms came around the 17th or 18th century but I doubt they were reliable or widely available. And of course we have the pill now but I think that didn;t come at all until the 20th century.

 

[LIT56RD]

Did I say anything about commiting mortal sins? I didn;t say they should use a pill or a condom I donlt personally see anything sinful about either but in my post I mentioned nothing about either thing. As for the first question says me who is living in a sexless marriage and plenty of other people who are living in very low or or no sex marriages.

I am new to this discussion so I probably don’t have a lot of clout with most on this forum. So how is that no sex marriage working for you. Kinda tough I would think. I lived in a sexless marriage for 25 years. It(excuse the language) it sucks. Sex less means less than 10 times in a 12 month period. It was my fault. My wonderful bride did not know that biologically I needed sex about every 3 to 4 days. She did not understand the biology of it. We have been married 33 years and we are now finally able to understand each other. It is wonderful.

 

[zz912]

One thing to remember is it was a totally different world 100 years ago.

First thing, fertility for women was much shorter than today, nutrition was much poorer and the fertile period was much shorter then compared to now. Additionally, breast feeding was the only option and spaced births somewhat, while today many use formula and are fertile quicker.

Second, if you only had one or two children, you had no guarantee they would live to adulthood as life expectancy was much lower and infant mortality much higher. Without children, you had no guarantee of anyone to take care of you in your old age.

 

[1ke]

Isn;t breastfeeding not super reliable for avoiding pregnancy?

Ecological breastfeeding is highly effective. Cultural breastfeeding is not.

I mean if one is really needing avoid and all.

As I stated, abstinence would be used if one must *avoid *while ecological breastfeeding would be used to space.

 

[Calliso]

One thing to remember is it was a totally different world 100 years ago.

First thing, fertility for women was much shorter than today, nutrition was much poorer and the fertile period was much shorter then compared to now. Additionally, breast feeding was the only option and spaced births somewhat, while today many use formula and are fertile quicker.

Second, if you only had one or two children, you had no guarantee they would live to adulthood as life expectancy was much lower and infant mortality much higher. Without children, you had no guarantee of anyone to take care of you in your old age.

Very good point. Woman would likely have had much shorter fertility times. I mean the idea of a 40 year old woman today having a kid is pretty normal. 100 years ago? You were pretty lucky to make it to adulthood as it was. And yeah having lots of kids was far more important back then. In attention to taking care of you in your old age they would have also been a good cheap source of labor.

 

[Calliso]

I am new to this discussion so I probably don’t have a lot of clout with most on this forum. So how is that no sex marriage working for you. Kinda tough I would think. I lived in a sexless marriage for 25 years. It(excuse the language) it sucks. Sex less means less than 10 times in a 12 month period. It was my fault. My wonderful bride did not know that biologically I needed sex about every 3 to 4 days. She did not understand the biology of it. We have been married 33 years and we are now finally able to understand each other. It is wonderful.

It is rough. We still have a pretty good marriage I think. But it is not as good as it could be. I can;t blame him though I am equally at fault.

 

[1ke]

And yeah having lots of kids was far more important back then. In attention to taking care of you in your old age they would have also been a good cheap source of labor.

I think, though, that we must refrain from projecting motives on our ancestors, such as “cheap labor” as if it were an impossible idea that someone would have a large family because of their love for children, their love for each other, and their love for God.

Many people today can’t imagine “why” people would “want” that many children-- and I believe that is a very impoverished viewpoint. All the families I know with lots of children absolutely love their big family and their kids. My husband’s father is one of 11 and his mother delighted in her children and grandchildren. Why is this so difficult to understand that we must cast around for ulterior motives to apply to people of days gone by?

 

[Calliso]

I think, though, that we must refrain from projecting motives on our ancestors, such as “cheap labor” as if it were an impossible idea that someone would have a large family because of their love for children, their love for each other, and their love for God.

Many people today can’t imagine “why” people would “want” that many children-- and I believe that is a very impoverished viewpoint. All the families I know with lots of children absolutely love their big family and their kids. My husband’s father is one of 11 and his mother delighted in her children and grandchildren. Why is this so difficult to understand that we must cast around for ulterior motives to apply to people of days gone by?

Well I am not saying that some people would not have had kids simply because they wanted them. I am sure most of these families loved their kids. But one thing to consider is just how dangerous pregnancy and especially child birth was back in time. not saying there isn;t risk now but we can;t deny before modern medicine the risk was far far greater Each time a woman got pregnant back then there was a good chance she would die. You donlt hear too many cases now of women dying in child birth, go back far enough in history though and it was a pretty common way for a woman to die. But the point is having a large family was a much bigger risk back then. Of course the value of children in many cases would have made the risk worth it in some cases, but I imagine many families would have carefully considered this risk and whether or not the benefits of another child out weighed this risk.

 

[vera_dicere]

One thing to remember is it was a totally different world 100 years ago.

First thing, fertility for women was much shorter than today, nutrition was much poorer and the fertile period was much shorter then compared to now. Additionally, breast feeding was the only option and spaced births somewhat, while today many use formula and are fertile quicker.

Second, if you only had one or two children, you had no guarantee they would live to adulthood as life expectancy was much lower and infant mortality much higher. Without children, you had no guarantee of anyone to take care of you in your old age.

Not to mention no anti-botics or blood transfusions, a lot of women would have died not becuase of complications from multiple successive pregnanices but because of infection and blood loss caused by the birth and lack of decent medical understanding.

I think a lot of the older generation would have used the “calandar” method, sure, it wouldnt’ have been as effective as todays’ NFP, but it would have helped.

And 100 years ago, the pill wasn’t even invented, and condoms were dodgey and expensive, so even if they were willing to go down the path of mortal sin, it wouldn’t have been an easily accessible path.

Frankly, I wouldn’t worry about it too much, we can’t know their minds nor their souls, nor how God judged them.