The truth about NFP

[Regina7]

I agree- NFP was never promoted to me as if it was going to do wonders for my marriage (though I do believe those who say they did hear those things- and that is too bad). In fact, it was actually never really promoted to me at all. My parents never talked to me about it, and I never heard about it from anyone in the Church. The presentation at our Marriage Encounter was so glossed over I don’t even think anyone knew what they were talking about. I learned about NFP through my own research.

My husband is involved enough to know what I’m talking about when I say “low”, “high”, or “peak”, but he does not chart and I don’t want him to. I don’t really see what the point is, when I can do it myself. It takes maybe 30 seconds. But he also doesn’t “pout” when we are fertile. He’s not a child.

It does kind of confuse me- all the angst over this. The alternative is either complete abstinence or to use ABC. If it’s really not a good time for a pregnancy, I sure want to make sure I know when I ovulate- I can never understand why people trust condoms more than that knowledge.

This was my experience too. NFP was never touted as some kind of easy miracle. My nfp teacher, a nurse, certainly discussed the health aspects (how abc is harmful, how docs can see potential health problems through nfp, etc). But I was never led to believe it would be a piece of cake. The classes were geared toward both spouses too, so even though my dh doesn’t chart for me (I can do it quicker), he does understand.

The nurse also discussed how nfp is a commitment, which certainly doesn’t imply “easy.”

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Maybe the title should read, “MY truth about NFP.” Rather than “THE” truth.

Although you feel that you were sold a bill of goods, I don’t.

I was simply told that NFP was a moral alternative to ABC. No one blew wind up my skirt about the wonders you talked about.

And, I figured out on my own that NFP was light years better than total abstinence. And since those were my two choices, I went with NFP. And it worked for me.

I feel similarly.

NFP is for me a way to conform with the Church. At times NFP is hard, now that I’m in my mid forties.

I did see one spiritual improvement though, in my marriage. When we used contraception we were sinning, and not really following the Church in many other areas. Now we both make the effort to be obedient to the Church. Even though it is difficult at times.

 

[maryjk]

I’d say the hardest thing about NFP is having to provide an explanation of why you need to do NFP to the internet peanut gallery.

Just kidding–but not that much. We seem to have a lot of CAFers who would literally NEVER be satisfied with any answer. You could have cancer and they’d tell you “St. Gianna Molla had cancer and was pregnant and she did just fine!”

Exaggerating, but not by much.

Oh my gosh, you aren’t exaggerating at all.

I know at one point I was told that if I continued to used NFP, I shouldn’t have gotten married.

Oh, oh and the time I was told, here, that if I really trusted God, I would let him take care of me while I was pregnant. That it didn’t matter what the doctors told me about the chances of me or the baby dying.

Or that “grave reasons” mean that you literally have to be at death’s door.

Yes, I have to agree that one of the hardest things about NFP is having to tell everyone why you are using it. And those you don’t tell? Well, they just conclude that you are using ABC.

 

[gardenswithkids]

If the promoters of NFP said something along the lines of “There are pros and cons to NFP. Here are the pros… And here are the cons… It’s hard sometimes, but you are doing the right thing by following the teachings of the Church.” I would have NO issues with NFP. None whatsoever./

Have you ever seen those commercials that promote contraception and various other prescriptions? What if they promoted NFP like that?

They’d make commercials with dancing, :dancing: smiling, :extrahappy: playful couples with music playing in the background, :harp:while the announcer rushes through a long list of side effects.

If they did that for NFP, the cost of thermometers and paper might go up substantially to cover the cost and pay the marketing executives, plus they’d need to place ads in medical journals and parenting magazine, and hire additional employees to market directly to doctors and nurses. Perhaps with lobbying efforts, insurance and tax payers would help pick up the bill to cover the cost. It takes a lot of money, time and effort to convince the public that they need something they may not actually need, but the people who make contraception have been doing that successfully for years.

In stark contrast to those who promote contraception, those who promote NFP are largely doing volunteer work without professional marketing experience. NFP promoters may not have yet learned how to tell the wonders of NFP while quickly declaring its potential shortcomings. :yeah_me:

 

[Xantippe]

What’s more NFP is miss sold because it is promoted to couples as morally neutral when in fact it is supposed to only be used for serious / grave reasons. Open to interpretation but certainly no “we want to have a couple of years together before the bother of kids”.

Well, a couple that only starts NFP under emergency circumstances is going to have a very hard time doing it effectively. If you wait until it’s an emergency, a mistake could literally kill you.

Also, a lot of couples get pregnant immediately, have the baby, and then discover during breastfeeding that they need to delay a repeat pregnancy. That couple is going to have a heck of a lot more trouble doing that than the couple that had some practice during easier times. And, needless to say, that couple is in danger of sterilization out of desperation if they have an NFP failure or two and a series of back-to-back pregnancies.

“We need to learn NFP now so that we’ll know how to do it in case of emergency,” sounds like a serious reason to me.

Also, a lot of young couples are in school, have very small incomes that would be halved if they had a baby, or (even if they have good incomes) have large amounts of student debt.

If my husband and I had had a baby when he was in grad school, we would have gone from a household income of about $24k to somewhere between $10k and $14k (depending on the year). Keeping us all eating would have required public assistance (which would have embarrassed me practically to death) and/or large cash infusions from the grandparents (ditto–as well as bringing third parties into our marriage). So, yeah, we did have serious reasons for the first three years of our marriage–and so do lots of other young couples.

Plus, NFP to avoid is just not having sex.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh my gosh, you aren’t exaggerating at all.

I know at one point I was told that if I continued to used NFP, I shouldn’t have gotten married.

Oh, oh and the time I was told, here, that if I really trusted God, I would let him take care of me while I was pregnant. That it didn’t matter what the doctors told me about the chances of me or the baby dying.

Or that “grave reasons” mean that you literally have to be at death’s door.

Yes, I have to agree that one of the hardest things about NFP is having to tell everyone why you are using it. And those you don’t tell? Well, they just conclude that you are using ABC.

True story: in one of these CAF threads, I mentioned that one of my serious reasons to avoid pregnancy is that I am within a year or so of the same age that my mom was when she had breast cancer (she had hers at 41/42).

I was told (totally not making this up!) that nowadays it’s just fine to do chemotherapy while pregnant.

Ooookay! No reason for concern at all, then!

 

[kptrs]

True story: in one of these CAF threads, I mentioned that one of my serious reasons to avoid pregnancy is that I am within a year or so of the same age that my mom was when she had breast cancer (she had hers at 41/42).

I was told (totally not making this up!) that nowadays it’s just fine to do chemotherapy while pregnant.

Ooookay! No reason for concern at all, then!

Just because something is technically “doable” doesn’t mean it should be done. If someone who has cancer happens to get pregnant, then hooray for the fact that chemotherapy can be done safely during pregnancy. But that doesn’t mean leave everything to chance and if you get pregnant that’s just a-ok.

If that’s true, why not just walk out into the street without looking for cars and be confident that God will stop you from getting hit? God helps us, but we also have to help ourselves.

 

[kptrs]

Oh my gosh, you aren’t exaggerating at all.

I know at one point I was told that if I continued to used NFP, I shouldn’t have gotten married.

Oh, oh and the time I was told, here, that if I really trusted God, I would let him take care of me while I was pregnant. That it didn’t matter what the doctors told me about the chances of me or the baby dying.

Or that “grave reasons” mean that you literally have to be at death’s door.

Yes, I have to agree that one of the hardest things about NFP is having to tell everyone why you are using it. And those you don’t tell? Well, they just conclude that you are using ABC.

I remember being soooooooooo angry with my husband when our son was about 2 months old. We were struggling with the challenges of post partum NFP. After a few weeks of abstinence (not including the 6 weeks of Doctor mandated abstinence) he started to get antsy and was making frequent comments about how he missed me and wanted so badly to make love, etc. That was fine and even quite sweet and romantic. But then, on a day when he was particularly full of desire and the chart just wasn’t cooperating, he said something along the lines of, “Well, we may have to just get pregnant again if the alternative is indefinite abstinence.” My jaw dropped down to my knees, but I let it go and tried to be understanding of how a man has a different need for sex than a woman, particularly a woman whose post partum body wants little to do with sex. But, later that night, the baby was up for about 5 hours straight, all through which my husband slept peacefully while I was about to conk. First thing in the morning, when he finally woke up, I let him have it, asking how it would be if he was the one with nausea, vomitting, heartburn, gestational diabetes, fatigue, etc. all while being sleep deprived and taking care of a two month old and your body still hasn’t healed from the first time? He apologized and clarified that he didn’t mean what he said literally, that he was just trying to make a point, etc. He also apologized for not helping that night when I needed help.

So yeah, everyone has their own boundaries that should be respected by the Church…and everyone.

 

[Xantippe]

Just because something is technically “doable” doesn’t mean it should be done. If someone who has cancer happens to get pregnant, then hooray for the fact that chemotherapy can be done safely during pregnancy. But that doesn’t mean leave everything to chance and if you get pregnant that’s just a-ok.

Yeah, I think that is a common CAF fallacy.

If one woman anywhere on earth has done something, it’s totally doable for everybody.

 

[Xantippe]

The other CAF NFP fallacy is believing that a situation was actually a “serious reason” that it means that you MUST not conceive a baby under those circumstances.

Which is probably why there’s so much resistance on CAF to describing pretty much anything as a serious reason. People who would have a baby under those circumstances feel criticized by anyone who describes the circumstances as “serious reasons.” Which is why we wind up with what maryjk and I have experienced–the mirage or rainbow of “serious reasons.” You never actually have serious reasons–serious reasons are always somewhere else.

What I try to point out in those discussions (but it never takes) is that “serious reasons” mean that it is permissible (not mandatory) to abstain.

 

[atassina]

Xantippe,
Your clarification actually moves along this discussion. It had not occurred to me to ask the question, “What is a serious reason?” At least you gave it a boundary. Did you get that definition from a canon lawyer or from a theologian?

Clarity of thought is important. Acting on our feelings alone is dangerous.

a

 

[Regina7]

Xantippe,
Your clarification actually moves along this discussion. It had not occurred to me to ask the question, “What is a serious reason?” At least you gave it a boundary. Did you get that definition from a canon lawyer or from a theologian?

Clarity of thought is important. Acting on our feelings alone is dangerous.

a

I think that’s part of the problem. The Church says “just” reasons. That is very open for interpretation. I’ve seen people here call just about everything a just reason. Some people think a just reason is a severe medical problem while others think a just reason is not wanting to give up the lifestyle they currently live (one mom told me that another child would eliminate their yearly vacation ). But pretty much everyone argues their reason is just, even if it’s really more selfishness. And all these threads do is argue the word “just.” And the typical response is, “If it’s just to me, then it’s just.” This begins the slippery slope of moral relativism. I really wish the Church would clarify what circumstances are considered “just.”

 

[Xantippe]

Xantippe,
Your clarification actually moves along this discussion. It had not occurred to me to ask the question, “What is a serious reason?” At least you gave it a boundary. Did you get that definition from a canon lawyer or from a theologian?

Clarity of thought is important. Acting on our feelings alone is dangerous.

a

Nah! But I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

More seriously, my husband actually writes Catholic academic stuff on sexuality and we’ve talked a lot about it over the years.

I don’t have a definition of serious reasons, but Simcha Fisher has a very nice treatment of the subject in her NFP book.

 

[atassina]

The Church trusts that married couples are mature Christians and desire to serve Jesus. Our money and our love lives are his. This is the difficult part. Giving these to God. How this plays out differers from one country to the next.

Describe what is a just and serious reason to a Kenyan couple, to an upper middle class couple in India, to a poor couple in the favelas of Brazil. The Church sets guidelines for all the world and not the USA alone.

This is why we don’t see definitive guidelines.

a

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Wow, this is a great thread and I can sympathize and agree with alot of posters here.

Here is my thoughts/story on my use with NFP. I’ve been using it for roughly 12.5 yrs. I started a few months before we got married and initially I was interested in seeing when I ovulated and how it all worked. (I’ve only ever used STM). We were required to take 1, yes just 1, NFP class during our marriage prep. I had already been given the book The art of Natural Family Planning by a cousin of mine so that is what I had been using and learning from prior to the class. In this class I was given the whole “dog and pony show” of NFP…how wonderful it was blah blah blah. Incidentally I also was given that in high school during a religion class…we didn’t actually learn NFP just that people who used it had a 4% chance of divorce (or whatever the stat was then).

Ok so we get married and I admit we didn’t faithfully use NFP…it was more like FAM so yes, I admit that we used condoms. And yes, I know that was wrong. We get pg with DS1 the following summer. Intentionally using NFP to help get pg, and yes it happened on the first month of “trying”. So after he was born we kinda wen back to the old FAM routine and it wasn’t until after DD 1 was born that we decided to really try to do NFP correctly. and we were pretty good about it. of course I only had 2 kids then and things were WAY less stressful than they are now.

Anyhow I ended up having 3 miscarriages in a row while trying for baby number 3…ended up being diagnosed with 2 clotting disorders and had to take lovenox during DD2s pregnancy, oh and I developed gestational diabetes…lovely…oh and I was super anxious and OCD about something being wrong…it was a horrible pregnancy b/c I was so scared something would happen.

we basically abstained during the postpartum period because I was so scared to get pg again. well after my cycles return I end up with another miscarriage (it wasn’t a surprise because we took a chance during a fertile time). So now my miscarriage total is 4… The next year I began to wonder if maybe we should try for #4 just b/c I was really hurting from my last miscarriage. We happen to get pg again the first month of “not trying not avoiding”. That pregnancy wasn’t much better than my DD2. I ended up on the lovenox and with gestational diabetes again.

and yes all my kids have some issues like learning disabilities, etc…which increases the stress on me as a mom…I’m terrified of having another with a disability that requires more therapies etc…

My thyroid and adrenals go crazy postpartum and it takes a while for them to calm down…it seems to get worse after each pregnancy. I am emotionally drained and KNOW that 4 kids is the limit for me. The thought of a 5th is terrifying…for many reasons, health, finances, emotional stability etc. So we abstained as best we could for almost a whole year postpartum (oh and did I mention I had a low lying placenta with DS2? yeah,so sex was off the table for a good portion of the pregnancy…nice) . I ended up weaning a month earlier than I planned b/c I wanted my cycles back and unlike the other kids, they didn’t return till after I weaned this time.

So yeah now we are back on the NFP wagon (and yes I admit that we’ve fallen off a few times). anyhow I am bitter about it…but what other choice is there? Moral issues aside, all the other forms of birth control have problems… I don’t trust any of them really. The only thing that comes close is knowing that I’ve ovulated and waiting till after. The problem then is that the sex drive is non existent till my period comes…ugh…but I have to remind myself that being on the pill would likely do the same thing.

I never wanted to ask DH to get a vasectomy with the increased risk of prostate cancer, but I did break down a few months back and say that if he doesn’t get on board with at least CHECKING the chart every other day or so then I would get a tubal or he had better get a vasectomy b/c I couldn’t do this on my own anymore… I don’t mind charting b/c it really does let me see if my body is doing ok but knowing when it’s a safe day or not should fall on both people…

So for me NFP is a huge cross but every alternative would be just as bad…and I’m not one of the lucky ones who is able to just keep having babies…I haven’t the health, money, mentality or support for it. So I guess what I’m working on right now is just accepting the fact and dealing with it in a healthful manner…stress reduction techniques etc.

Ugh, I rambled on and on but hopefully someone can sympathize with me and understand that they are not alone…

 

[Xantippe]

I think that’s part of the problem. The Church says “just” reasons. That is very open for interpretation. I’ve seen people here call just about everything a just reason. Some people think a just reason is a severe medical problem while others think a just reason is not wanting to give up the lifestyle they currently live (one mom told me that another child would eliminate their yearly vacation ). But pretty much everyone argues their reason is just, even if it’s really more selfishness. And all these threads do is argue the word “just.” And the typical response is, “If it’s just to me, then it’s just.” This begins the slippery slope of moral relativism. I really wish the Church would clarify what circumstances are considered “just.”

I think you should read Simcha Fisher’s book, if you haven’t already.

Would “yearly vacation” sound better to you phrased as “an opportunity to see our older relatives once a year before they die and for the kids to have memories of them” or “an opportunity to get dad away from his home projects and mom away from the laundry, have fun together without stressing about everyday things and see the Grand Canyon or the beach.”

I know in my family, which only three kids, easily 90% of our travel is to see family, and I wish we had more of an opportunity to show the kids the country. We’ve lived in Texas 8 years, we live two states away from Colorado, one state from New Mexico, and one state away from Louisiana, and we haven’t visited any of them. The kids also have never been to my husband’s home country in Eastern Europe.

Travel doesn’t have to be gross materialism or selfishness. It can be educational, enriching, and an opportunity to make memories with your children and broaden their horizons. See, for example, Amy Welborn’s road schooling blog posts.

amywelborn.wordpress.com/category/homeschooling/roadschooling/

 

[kptrs]

The other CAF NFP fallacy is believing that a situation was actually a “serious reason” that it means that you MUST not conceive a baby under those circumstances.

Which is probably why there’s so much resistance on CAF to describing pretty much anything as a serious reason. People who would have a baby under those circumstances feel criticized by anyone who describes the circumstances as “serious reasons.” Which is why we wind up with what maryjk and I have experienced–the mirage or rainbow of “serious reasons.” You never actually have serious reasons–serious reasons are always somewhere else.

What I try to point out in those discussions (but it never takes) is that “serious reasons” mean that it is permissible (not mandatory) to abstain.

Right. If a woman who has cancer desperately wants a child and is OK with taking the risks, then by no means does she have to use NFP to avoid under those circumstances. But no one should be labeled as selfish or not trusting in God if they do feel they should use NFP to avoid under those circumstances.

As with my post about my husband’s comment when our son was 2 months old, I am fully aware that there are dozens, probably hundreds, of women who are fine with, and even prefer, back-to-back pregnancies, and I say, more power to them. I am not a woman who can physically, mentally, and emotionally handle back-to-back pregnancies, and women like me should not be accused of being selfish, not trusting in God, etc. Just because something works for many people, doesn’t mean it works for everyone. That’s what I mean about everyone having their own boundaries, and those boundaries should be respected by the Church…and everyone.

 

[kptrs]

I think you should read Simcha Fisher’s book, if you haven’t already.

Would “yearly vacation” sound better to you phrased as “an opportunity to see our older relatives once a year before they die and for the kids to have memories of them” or “an opportunity to get dad away from his home projects and mom away from the laundry, have fun together without stressing about everyday things and see the Grand Canyon or the beach.”

I know in my family, which only three kids, easily 90% of our travel is to see family, and I wish we had more of an opportunity to show the kids the country. We’ve lived in Texas 8 years, we live two states away from Colorado, one state from New Mexico, and one state away from Louisiana, and we haven’t visited any of them. The kids also have never been to my husband’s home country in Eastern Europe.

Travel doesn’t have to be gross materialism or selfishness. It can be educational, enriching, and an opportunity to make memories with your children and broaden their horizons. See, for example, Amy Welborn’s road schooling blog posts.

amywelborn.wordpress.com/category/homeschooling/roadschooling/

Exactly what I was going to say, but you worded it a million times better.

 

[Regina7]

I think you should read Simcha Fisher’s book, if you haven’t already.

Would “yearly vacation” sound better to you phrased as “an opportunity to see our older relatives once a year before they die and for the kids to have memories of them” or “an opportunity to get dad away from his home projects and mom away from the laundry, have fun together without stressing about everyday things and see the Grand Canyon or the beach.”

I know in my family, which only three kids, easily 90% of our travel is to see family, and I wish we had more of an opportunity to show the kids the country. We’ve lived in Texas 8 years, we live two states away from Colorado, one state from New Mexico, and one state away from Louisiana, and we haven’t visited any of them. The kids also have never been to my husband’s home country in Eastern Europe.

Travel doesn’t have to be gross materialism or selfishness. It can be educational, enriching, and an opportunity to make memories with your children and broaden their horizons. See, for example, Amy Welborn’s road schooling blog posts.

amywelborn.wordpress.com/category/homeschooling/roadschooling/

In my friend’s case, it’s a yearly trip to Disney World- no visiting of family. She also says that she likes having a new car (replaced every few years). And, no, it’s not for reasons of safety- she just likes new cars. But, like many people, she justifies this as just because SHE thinks it’s just.

I’ll definitely check out that book. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Allegra]

I think that’s part of the problem. The Church says “just” reasons. That is very open for interpretation. I’ve seen people here call just about everything a just reason. Some people think a just reason is a severe medical problem while others think a just reason is not wanting to give up the lifestyle they currently live (one mom told me that another child would eliminate their yearly vacation ). But pretty much everyone argues their reason is just, even if it’s really more selfishness. And all these threads do is argue the word “just.” And the typical response is, “If it’s just to me, then it’s just.” This begins the slippery slope of moral relativism. I really wish the Church would clarify what circumstances are considered “just.”

I have a coworker (who I don’t think is Catholic or religious) but in her mind, it’s important to only have one child because if you have more than one, you might not be able to afford to put both of them in high end, pre-Olympic gymnastics classes and spend your life travelling around the country attending competitions. Her daughter is only two years old, and it hasn’t occurred to her yet that centering your toddler’s entire existence around a silly sport might be a bad idea in the first place. SHe doesn’t even know if the kid is any good at gymnastics yet, but let’s deny her a sibling, just in case! PS- I’ve never heard anything even remotely that ridiculous on CAF, so I guess we do have some standards.