O
orange93
Guest
How effective is natural family planning (NFP)? Any experience? I’m just curious.
- Status
Y
yinekka
Guest
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07022107.html
Wednesday February 21, 2007
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
By Peter J. Smith
HEIDELBERG, Germany, February 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study by German researchers shows that a method of natural family planning is statistically as effective as the contraceptive pill in delaying pregnancy.
Researchers from the University of Heidelberg studied the statistical effectiveness of the symptothermal method (STM) to avoid achieving pregnancy. Unlike contraceptives that either suppress a woman’s natural fertility cycle or act as a barrier to conception, STM helps a woman to understand the natural signs of her fertility in order to achieve or temporarily delay pregnancy.
The study involving 900 women was published in the journal, Human Reproduction, and found that the correct use of STM to delay pregnancy led to a rate of 0.4 pregnancies per 100 women per year. The lowest pregnancy rate was found among women who abstained from sex during their most fertile period identified through STM.
In contrast, women who used a barrier method, such as a condom, had a pregnancy rate of .6 pregnancies per 100 women per year. Women who had sex (without contraception) during the fertile period had a pregnancy rate of only 7.5 pregnancies per 100 women per year, however researchers noted that this was a quarter of the rate one would usually expect.
According to Lead researcher Dr Petra Frank-Herrmann: “The effectiveness of STM is comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning.”
However, Vicki Braun, the assistant director for education at Couple to Couple League, an organisation teaching NFP techniques to married and engaged coupes since 1971, told LifeSiteNews that STM should not be regarded as a kind of “natural contraception”, a headline billed in many news reports.
“‘Natural’ and ‘contraception’ [against conception] are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum,” Braun said. “Natural family planning is really fertility awareness” explaining that STM by itself does nothing, but gives couples data on the natural signs of a woman’s fertility. The couple then discerns how they use the data of STM, whether to increase their chances of conceiving or to delay temporarily the conception of a child.
The Catholic Church has taught NFP methods are legitimate means of family planning when a couple has openness to life and that they increase communication between a couple if used responsibly and in accord with Church guidelines. The divorce rate of couples using NFP is dramatically below the norm and is a mere 5%.
The Difference between Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning
OTTAWA, January 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Often it is heard that artificial contraception does not fit with the philosophy of the culture of life, but birth regulation by natural family planning (NFP) does. Many have asked why that is so, especially for non-abortifacient contraceptives such as the condom, when the end result is the same.
Christopher West, a world-renowned expert on the “Theology of the Body”, explained the difference during a talk near Ottawa Tuesday. West said that the difference was in taking God’s authority over life into one’s own hands. West, a professor of sexual ethics in the St. John Vianney Seminary in Chicago and visiting professor of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family Australia campus, compared the difference to “waiting for your grandmother to die naturally and killing her” noting with sarcasm that “the end result is the same.”
With euthanasia, as with artificial contraception you take decisions over life and death into your own hands rather than leaving them up to God, said West. With NFP you can avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex until the fertile period in the woman’s cycle ends, so with the death of the elderly one can know it is coming soon without artificially hurrying it along.
LifeSite questioned West on the use of NFP with a contraceptive mentality. West responded that children are to be seen as a blessing from God. When married couples feel that they are compelled by their circumstances to avoid children, it is a sorrow for them - NFP is to be used for generous rather than selfish reasons. West returned to his analogy of the grandmother and suggested waiting for the grandmother to die with the attitude of “I can’t wait till she’s dead, hurry up come on, come on” is analogous to the use of NFP with a contraceptive mentality.
You might also want to check out the Couple to Couple League
ccli.org/
Wednesday February 21, 2007
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
By Peter J. Smith
HEIDELBERG, Germany, February 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study by German researchers shows that a method of natural family planning is statistically as effective as the contraceptive pill in delaying pregnancy.
Researchers from the University of Heidelberg studied the statistical effectiveness of the symptothermal method (STM) to avoid achieving pregnancy. Unlike contraceptives that either suppress a woman’s natural fertility cycle or act as a barrier to conception, STM helps a woman to understand the natural signs of her fertility in order to achieve or temporarily delay pregnancy.
The study involving 900 women was published in the journal, Human Reproduction, and found that the correct use of STM to delay pregnancy led to a rate of 0.4 pregnancies per 100 women per year. The lowest pregnancy rate was found among women who abstained from sex during their most fertile period identified through STM.
In contrast, women who used a barrier method, such as a condom, had a pregnancy rate of .6 pregnancies per 100 women per year. Women who had sex (without contraception) during the fertile period had a pregnancy rate of only 7.5 pregnancies per 100 women per year, however researchers noted that this was a quarter of the rate one would usually expect.
According to Lead researcher Dr Petra Frank-Herrmann: “The effectiveness of STM is comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning.”
However, Vicki Braun, the assistant director for education at Couple to Couple League, an organisation teaching NFP techniques to married and engaged coupes since 1971, told LifeSiteNews that STM should not be regarded as a kind of “natural contraception”, a headline billed in many news reports.
“‘Natural’ and ‘contraception’ [against conception] are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum,” Braun said. “Natural family planning is really fertility awareness” explaining that STM by itself does nothing, but gives couples data on the natural signs of a woman’s fertility. The couple then discerns how they use the data of STM, whether to increase their chances of conceiving or to delay temporarily the conception of a child.
The Catholic Church has taught NFP methods are legitimate means of family planning when a couple has openness to life and that they increase communication between a couple if used responsibly and in accord with Church guidelines. The divorce rate of couples using NFP is dramatically below the norm and is a mere 5%.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jan/04010903.html
Friday January 9, 2004
The Difference between Artificial Contraception and Natural Family PlanningOTTAWA, January 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Often it is heard that artificial contraception does not fit with the philosophy of the culture of life, but birth regulation by natural family planning (NFP) does. Many have asked why that is so, especially for non-abortifacient contraceptives such as the condom, when the end result is the same.
Christopher West, a world-renowned expert on the “Theology of the Body”, explained the difference during a talk near Ottawa Tuesday. West said that the difference was in taking God’s authority over life into one’s own hands. West, a professor of sexual ethics in the St. John Vianney Seminary in Chicago and visiting professor of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family Australia campus, compared the difference to “waiting for your grandmother to die naturally and killing her” noting with sarcasm that “the end result is the same.”
With euthanasia, as with artificial contraception you take decisions over life and death into your own hands rather than leaving them up to God, said West. With NFP you can avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex until the fertile period in the woman’s cycle ends, so with the death of the elderly one can know it is coming soon without artificially hurrying it along.
LifeSite questioned West on the use of NFP with a contraceptive mentality. West responded that children are to be seen as a blessing from God. When married couples feel that they are compelled by their circumstances to avoid children, it is a sorrow for them - NFP is to be used for generous rather than selfish reasons. West returned to his analogy of the grandmother and suggested waiting for the grandmother to die with the attitude of “I can’t wait till she’s dead, hurry up come on, come on” is analogous to the use of NFP with a contraceptive mentality.
You might also want to check out the Couple to Couple League
ccli.org/
H
hockeyfighter21
Guest
one should only undertake the using of nfp under serious reasons. it would be best in my opinion to ask a good spiritual advisor or priest.
O
orange93
Guest
Why’s that? What serious reasons?
L
LLMom
Guest
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.20
From Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI)
NO one can tell you what serious reasons are, though. That is for you and your spouse to discern through prayer and with a good spiritual director if need be.
From Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI)
NO one can tell you what serious reasons are, though. That is for you and your spouse to discern through prayer and with a good spiritual director if need be.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
NFP is a contraception that is 99.9% effective, according to their advertising.
M
manualman
Guest
Contracetive users are always desperate to argue that NFP is exactly the same as contraception. Ironically, they are equally desperate to NOT be reliant on NFP for avoiding pregnancy and to justify using something else!
This reveals much about WHY there really IS a difference. Contraception is a product of a sexual worldview that says sex is about ME, what I want, and I want it NOW. Take, take, take.
God, on the other hand, intended sex to be a physical manifestation of the self GIVING love between a man and wife. Thus, if circumstances make pregnancy imprudent for serious reasons, NFP is NOT about how to GET what you want with no consequences. It is about giving UP what you want for a time out of love and respect for your wife who has a serious reason to not get pregnant right now (obviously I’m a guy and speaking from my own perspective).
This has a VERY common practical manifestation. Since contraception requires no sacrifice, it is self perpetuating. Using it leads to MORE using it and the result is our entire Western culture having sub-replacement fertility rates. Abstaining to avoid, on the other hand, tends to confront you with your allegedly serious reason monthly, with the common experience among NFP users being a recognition after some time that the “reason” really isn’t as serious as we once thought it was. I’mconvinced this is how i came to have three kids (so far!) instead of giving up after the very difficult second.
Next time a contraceptive user argues with you that NFP is the same thing as a condom or pill, ask them why they don’t use it then!
This reveals much about WHY there really IS a difference. Contraception is a product of a sexual worldview that says sex is about ME, what I want, and I want it NOW. Take, take, take.
God, on the other hand, intended sex to be a physical manifestation of the self GIVING love between a man and wife. Thus, if circumstances make pregnancy imprudent for serious reasons, NFP is NOT about how to GET what you want with no consequences. It is about giving UP what you want for a time out of love and respect for your wife who has a serious reason to not get pregnant right now (obviously I’m a guy and speaking from my own perspective).
This has a VERY common practical manifestation. Since contraception requires no sacrifice, it is self perpetuating. Using it leads to MORE using it and the result is our entire Western culture having sub-replacement fertility rates. Abstaining to avoid, on the other hand, tends to confront you with your allegedly serious reason monthly, with the common experience among NFP users being a recognition after some time that the “reason” really isn’t as serious as we once thought it was. I’mconvinced this is how i came to have three kids (so far!) instead of giving up after the very difficult second.
Next time a contraceptive user argues with you that NFP is the same thing as a condom or pill, ask them why they don’t use it then!
B
Bookcat
Guest
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church --issued by Pope Benedict XVI
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
- When is it moral to regulate births?
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
1
1ke
Guest
(a) NFP is not contraception.
(b) There are multiple methods of natural family planning, each with varying method and use effectiveness rates. All very close, but not identical. So, one cannot talk about “effectiveness of NFP” as one entity. One must talk about Sympto-Thermal, Creighton, Billings, and Marquette individually.
1
1ke
Guest
I suggest you review Sympto-Thermal Method, Creighton Method, Billings Ovulation Method, and the Marquette Method individually to learn the various fertility signs that each one tracks and the studies on the individual methods regarding effectiveness.
Effectiveness, by the way, is not relevant to the morality of natural family planning. Your questions somewhat lacks a context. That is why other posters have indicated that one must have a just reason to use NFP in the first place.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
The vast majority of people who use NFP use it as a natural contraception. Technically, it seems that even those who use it for “legitimate” reasons (if such even exist) use it as a contraception because they necessarily have an intention to prevent conception. The purpose of their action is to avoid conception.
1
1ke
Guest
That is not what makes something a contraceptive.
A contraceptive is a device or action that *alters *a completed act of sexual intercourse to try to render it sterile.
Not having intercourse doesn’t alter the act. There is no act. Every time the couple has intercourse, it is completely unaltered.
NFP not contraception.
Both natural family planning and contraception are methods of birth control– the spacing or avoiding of children for a time or indefinitely-- which the Church does not teach is inherently sinful. It is not sinful when one has a just reason.
F
financemom
Guest
I recommend the Sympto-Thermal Method. Get Taking Charge of Your Fertility. It is a great book that makes it easy to understand. Although, she suggests using barrier methods during the fertile times (it is not a Catholic book), so just replace “barrier methods” with abstinence…or if you are trying to get pregnant replace it with sex.
We used NFP early in our marriage to avoid, and then we switched to using it to achieve pregnancy in 2008. Honestly, it is a great way to help you GET pregnant, because you know your most fertile times, etc.
I thought STM was the easiest, but there are a few methods out there…so make sure to do your research!
For the record, my group of friends who use NFP has had less unplanned pregnancies than my friends who use contraceptives. A lot of my friends who use NFP aren’t even Catholic…they just don’t want the hormones from pills in their bodies.
We used NFP early in our marriage to avoid, and then we switched to using it to achieve pregnancy in 2008. Honestly, it is a great way to help you GET pregnant, because you know your most fertile times, etc.
I thought STM was the easiest, but there are a few methods out there…so make sure to do your research!
For the record, my group of friends who use NFP has had less unplanned pregnancies than my friends who use contraceptives. A lot of my friends who use NFP aren’t even Catholic…they just don’t want the hormones from pills in their bodies.
3
3GirlsRUs
Guest
If you just want anecdotal evidence, for our family it’s been 100% effective for whichever thing we were ready to do - achieve pregnancy or avoid pregnancy.
M
manualman
Guest
Integra, if it makes you feel better you can call NFP “birth control” and nobody can argue with you. You can call nearly anything “birth control” from complete abstinance, to contraceptives to those funny thick glasses the military used to issue to servicemen…
But as noted above, the word “contraceptive” explicitly means an action that sterilizes the sex act so that pregnancy will not result. NFP simply doesn’t fit that definition.
Even catholics DO need to be encouraged / reminded not to allow the practice of NFP to become simply catholic “birth control”. You DO need to check in with God on just how “serious” your reason is. God thoughtfully built into NFP some rather pointed monthly reminders to us to do so.
But as noted above, the word “contraceptive” explicitly means an action that sterilizes the sex act so that pregnancy will not result. NFP simply doesn’t fit that definition.
Even catholics DO need to be encouraged / reminded not to allow the practice of NFP to become simply catholic “birth control”. You DO need to check in with God on just how “serious” your reason is. God thoughtfully built into NFP some rather pointed monthly reminders to us to do so.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Whose definition is this exactly? It’s a convenient choice for someone who wants to support NFP, but it doesn’t get to the heart of what contraception is. Contra + coeptus = against the beginning (of life). Anything moral act that works towards this end is a contraception.
It is impossible to divorce intention from a moral act. The fact that the couple is planning, abstaining only periodically, etc., demonstrates their intention. If someone steals $5 from someone, it’s not a mortal sin. If someone plans to steal $5 from someone everyday for a year, it is a mortal sin. It doesn’t matter that the fruition comes at large gaps. The moral “act” lasts a long period of time. It is no different with NFP. While abstaining in itself isn’t sinful, and a couple can do so for years if they so choose (or even live entirely celibately, as many saints have done in the past), that doesn’t mean that they can do so as it is done within the whole circumstances of the moral act of NFP and with the ill intention. Of course, if they intend not to have children or even if they don’t actually intend (at least virtually) to have children, then they have already corrupted the marital act each time they engage in it because the intention (except for things that are intrinsically evil), usually plays the central role in assessing the moral weight of any act. No to will children in the marital act is to divorce it from its primary end, which is always contrary to natural law.
It is also a tenable position to hold that NFP is always at least venially sinful. This seems much more reasonable philosophically, though I’m not researched enough to speak to the theological implications this may have. A good Dominican scholar researched and published an article about this in the 1950s. I believe it is available online, if you Google it.
L
LLMom
Guest
Like it or not the church has spoken on this issue. NFP is allowed. You used a stealing analogy. Say two men had families that needed to be fed. One got a job to feed them and one stole money or the food. Both had the same end, to feed their family, but only one is morally acceptable. Same with family planning.
I have seen way too many Catholics out there trying to say that NFP (and other issues like modesty) is wrong. Visit here for info about these types of subjects if you are dealing with this a lot. thechurchfanatic.blogspot.com
I have seen way too many Catholics out there trying to say that NFP (and other issues like modesty) is wrong. Visit here for info about these types of subjects if you are dealing with this a lot. thechurchfanatic.blogspot.com
C
choose_to_love
Guest
OK, this is too much.
Integra, how exactly do you reconcile your statement that the use of NFP to regulate birth is always, repeat always at least venially sinful, with the clear teaching of HV: “If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” (emphasis added)?
Whatever article you are referencing is apparently well before HV, so perhaps it was a point that had not been clarified, but there is no ambiguity in the referenced part of HV.
to the OP: We have four children six and under, and have used NFP throughout the marriage (10 years this week), but it may not be what you are thinking. We have two adoptions, and have used NFP both to successfully postpone pregnancy and to achieve pregnancy with our two biological kids (well, OK, we weren’t actually specifically trying for the first biological child, but we knew we were in the fertile phase and took advantage of the chance to renew our vows anyway; what a blessing we received in our first son!) I think the earlier link to the work of Petra Frank-Herman is one of more recent studies demonstrating the effectiveness of NFP, and as far as I know she is secular.
Integra, how exactly do you reconcile your statement that the use of NFP to regulate birth is always, repeat always at least venially sinful, with the clear teaching of HV: “If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” (emphasis added)?
Whatever article you are referencing is apparently well before HV, so perhaps it was a point that had not been clarified, but there is no ambiguity in the referenced part of HV.
to the OP: We have four children six and under, and have used NFP throughout the marriage (10 years this week), but it may not be what you are thinking. We have two adoptions, and have used NFP both to successfully postpone pregnancy and to achieve pregnancy with our two biological kids (well, OK, we weren’t actually specifically trying for the first biological child, but we knew we were in the fertile phase and took advantage of the chance to renew our vows anyway; what a blessing we received in our first son!) I think the earlier link to the work of Petra Frank-Herman is one of more recent studies demonstrating the effectiveness of NFP, and as far as I know she is secular.
- Status