What is NFP for?

[cho_pilo]

The following quote was posted by someone who defends the RH Bill on another thread.

a family chooses to employ NFP for the same reasons they would use artificial methods (AM). it is like choosing between slippers made of natural materials like a bakya (bakya is a Filipino term which means an artificial materials like plastic to protect your feet from getting dirty). AM is just more effective than the NFM, aside from not being too complicated to use and with no room for spontaneity [what if it was my birthday and my husband treated me with a weekend with him someplace nice, and i am fertile but i really got turned on because he was so sweet?

if you are concerned with safety then i suggest that you also don’t use any medication from the pharmacy and natural medication. even teas have tannins that causes cancer in the digestive tract, milk causes an overproduction of mucous in the linings of our tracts and causes breast cancer too, and i suggest that the pope should be more concerned with putting vices such as smoking on the list of banned materials and no catholic/christian should ever smoke lest he would risk sin. i am a geneticist in a university lab in china doing molecular diagnostics such as cancer-typing, mutation detection (ex. aneuploidies, g6pd, sma…), and pathogen identification (food-borne diseases, malaria, tb…). we are the people who do these studies on where, how, why & which substances causes cancers and how to detect them. birth control pills are the least of your worries. just for strong cancer-correlating issues, perhaps the catholic church would want to address obesity, tobacco use, pesticide use, mercury & heavy metals in our water, HPV, hepatitis, and our own BRCA1 & 2 genes. the relationship between pills & cancer is not a clear line. some women even have a reduced risk of cancer if they take pills - which by the way is made of women’s naturally occurring sex hormones. maybe the church should also label testosterone shots sinful to show equality.

if its really an issue, then use condoms which are perfectly safe and non-carcinogenic.

i dont really know much about NFP but i’ve looked up the following models. the Creighton & Billings methodst are similar in that they observe the viscosity of the mucosal discharge and judge from that. the problem is that the mucosal discharge can easily be influenced by factors other than ovulation (fertility) cycles - there are hormone fluctuations, infections, arousal, what you ate for lunch, etc. as for the sympto-thermal method which depends on timing it according to charts of a woman’s temperature throughout her menstrual cycle - again body temperature fluctuates according to her stress level, blood pressure, any infection, environmental temperature, etc. lastly the marquette method which is the only one that gives off any hint of reliability, uses a device that measures hormone levels in urine to determine fertility. adding to the reliability factor, it DOESN’T SAY THAT IT IS RELIABLE and instead says that it should be used in conjunction with other methods of family planning - which makes it more credible. all of these i’ve got from their main websites still, urine can be diluted, hormonal cycles themselves fluctuate, etc. and its seems like these methods are only meant for unstressed, very healthy women living in a bubble.

I will appreciate comments from Catholics. I believe that one of the funder of RH bill is the U.N. They will not give aid to the Philippines if the country do not legalize abortion. This is the same with Kenya, etc.
[/quote]

 

[1ke]

Natural Family Planning is the term that refers to several methods by which a woman can observer her fertility and chart her cycle. A married couple can use NFP to achieve or avoid pregnancy. There are about 4 main methods of NFP: Sympto-Thermal, Creighton, Billings, and Marquette. Each uses one or more signs of a woman’s fertility (basal body temperature, cervical mucus, cervical position) and a charting system.

For couples with low fertility, they can have sexual relations when they are most likely to conceive. For couples who want to space or avoid children for a just reason, they can use NFP to have sexual relations when they are least likely to conceive.

These methods are in harmony with Catholic teaching when used according to the Church’s moral criteria because they combine information with periodic abstinence.

Contraception, on the other hand, is immoral.

The person you are quoting doesn’t understand the Church’s teaching on the immorality of contraception at all. They also don’t really understand NFP all that well.

 

[Debora123]

These methods are in harmony with Catholic teaching when used according to the Church’s moral criteria because they combine information with periodic abstinence.

What exactly IS the Church’s “moral criteria?”

Just curious.

 

[1ke]

What exactly IS the Church’s “moral criteria?”

Just curious.

The Church gives couples great lattitude in this area. The couples’ decisions must conform to objective moral criteria so certain things do not-- contraception as a means or selfishness, materialism, etc. as a motive/intent for example.

From the Catechism:
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.

The catechism is quoting Gaudium Et Spes

From Humanae Vitae:
With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

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.*

 

[Debora123]

So What the Church is pretty much saying is that, for example, it’s ok for a poor couple with no money to only want to have 2 children, but if a rich couple only wants to have 2 children, that’s wrong?

What exactly is considered a “selfish reason?”

Seems like what I’m getting out of this is that we’re not allowed to NOT WANT any additional children. We’re only allowed to not be able to PROVIDE for any additional children. Is this pretty accurate?

So does this mean a rich healthy couple is required to have dozens of kids or something? This subject has always been very confusing to me, and never extremely clear.

 

[jilly4ski]

So What the Church is pretty much saying is that, for example, it’s ok for a poor couple with no money to only want to have 2 children, but if a rich couple only wants to have 2 children, that’s wrong?

What exactly is considered a “selfish reason?”

Seems like what I’m getting out of this is that we’re not allowed to NOT WANT any additional children. We’re only allowed to not be able to PROVIDE for any additional children. Is this pretty accurate?

So does this mean a rich healthy couple is required to have dozens of kids or something? This subject has always been very confusing to me, and never extremely clear.

Reread 1ke’s post quoting the relevant documents. I have bolded some important parts.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children,

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,

 

[Debora123]

Reread 1ke’s post quoting the relevant documents. I have bolded some important parts.

Right, I saw that. That’s why I used the example of a rich, healthy couple (assuming everything about them is healthy, including physical, emotional, economical, pshychological, etc etc). Are they required to keep having children after children after children until they are no longer as “healthy?” Are they allowed to get to a certain point where they’re just like “ok, we are capable of raising more children if we wanted to, but we’ve had 12 already and we think that’s quite enough. We don’t really want anymore.” Or would that be a sin??

 

[jilly4ski]

Right, I saw that. That’s why I used the example of a rich, healthy couple (assuming everything about them is healthy, including physical, emotional, economical, pshychological, etc etc). Are they required to keep having children after children after children until they are no longer as “healthy?” Are they allowed to get to a certain point where they’re just like “ok, we are capable of raising more children if we wanted to, but we’ve had 12 already and we think that’s quite enough. We don’t really want anymore.” Or would that be a sin??

Would that really happen that often? 12 children is a lot. I can imagine one or both parents would be very tired and busy. They might decide to postpone having another, because they don’t think they could care for another, or give enough attention, can’t care for the other children while pregnant, etc. After 12 children, the mother would probably be getting close to menopause. These concerns might continue to menopause and they might never have another. Or they might decide after a while that these concerns are no longer an issue and have another child. I don’t want to say sinful per se, but deciding not to have children is a month to month discernment, not a decided now once and forever kind of thing. (Of course certain concerns like age of parents might be serious reasons to avoid this month, could last until the couple can no longer have children).

 

[twoangels]

Right, I saw that. That’s why I used the example of a rich, healthy couple (assuming everything about them is healthy, including physical, emotional, economical, pshychological, etc etc). Are they required to keep having children after children after children until they are no longer as “healthy?” Are they allowed to get to a certain point where they’re just like “ok, we are capable of raising more children if we wanted to, but we’ve had 12 already and we think that’s quite enough. We don’t really want anymore.” Or would that be a sin??

Ok, you’re giving a very high number that would tend to lead someone to visualize parents who are emotionally and psycohologically stretched to their limits. However, then you’re claiming that they’re not stretched to their limits. Really, what is the point of adding that they have 12 children already if not to express that they’re stretched to their limits?

The point is the NFP requires a sacrifice the couple makes for the well being of the family. The abstainence is not a positive thing, but a sacrifice made for the greater good. Its like being in a financially tight spot and choosing for a time to work opposite shifts, tons of overtime and to barely see each other at all. Now this can be great motivation to make the most of the time that the two of you do have together, but its a hard thing to do and overall its important to have that time together just as its important to make love in a marriage.

So, its ultimately about weighing out the sacrifices. A couple who is financially tight might still see that they’re arguing more and overall that their marriage NEEDS more time together. They go over their budget again and decide that a change of course needs to be made even though it might mean cutting some other corners. Or they may go through their budget and say “You know what, we really have to go through this a bit longer. We can do more with the time we do have, so let’s focus on that instead.”

I really don’t think there is any circumstance a couple can find themselves in where they’re not having to weigh factors especially if the couple already has a large family. Selfishness isn’t always as clear as acknowledging that its silly to deny your spouse sexual relations for the sake of pursuing an expensive flashy car. And that’s ultimately what the couple has to see. Its not a question of “Do we make another baby?” but rather “Do we make love?” Well, if we make love we have this percentage of a chance to get pregnant. Weighing everything else in our lives out, what should we do? Do we have a serious enough reason not to make love to limit our chances of getting pregnant? Would making love be wreckless of us?

See, society just looks at it as “Stay closed to pregnancy unless everything is perfect. Have infertile sex the majority of the time through contraceptives and then when you want to have your kid, get off the contraception and start actively trying to have the kid in the timeframe you want the kid. Then if it goes on too long, you can try invetro and other methods.” Catholicism is the opposite direction, “Children are a gift from God, a large family is a blessing. Making love is beautiful and essential to marriage, but if you have grave reason to space or limit the number, than NFP is there. And if after all this time of making love whenever you want to and still not getting pregnant, NFP is there to help you get pregnant as well.”

 

[Debora123]

Yeah, I was giving a very high number, which I guess would just make the whole thing very unrealistic. My mistake.

I was really just trying to make a point to ask a question. My question was, once a couple gets to a certain point after having a reasonable number of children (like maybe 4ish), are they ALLOWED to not WANT any more children, even if they are capable of it in every way? Are they allowed to be like “Ok, so we’ve had 4 children already and we feel like that’s quite enough. We could have more but we really don’t want to.” Would that be a sin for them to choose not to have anymore children simply because they feel like they’ve had enough and don’t want anymore?

I guess from reading everyone’s posts, the answer would be yes lol.

 

[choose_to_love]

Deb, I think part of the issue here is in using the terms “wants” and “feels” to describe what the couple is going through. In the paraphrased words of our Saviour, part of the exercise of responsible parenthood is “not my will, but Thine be done”. It is not simply what the couple may or may not “want” or “feel” like, per se; it is what they are being called to do by God. Per HV, quoted by 1ke upthread: the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that the husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties to God, themselves, their families, and human society.

Although typically the shorthand ‘wants’ or ‘feels’ is used, and for the reasons set forth above I think that is incomplete, most often what is meant, it seems to me, is that the couple is considering the middle two factors - - what are we (the couple) being called to this month? Is my spouse overwhelmed with child care? Is one spouse overwhelmed at work? Are they caring for an elderly relative? Has one spouse just been laid off work? Is one or more children special needs?

The beauty, to me, of Catholic teaching in this matter is that our God, the Creator of the universe, trusts us to decide when to co-create a new, eternal soul! He trusts us to prayerfully discern and use our well-formed consciences to apply the principles of responsible parenthood to when to co-create with Him.

A final point - - it seems to me you are experiencing Truth (i.e., what the Church teaches about our nature, the nature of sexuality, etc.) as “rules” imposed from above - - what is “allowed” or “required”. The Church, established by Christ Himself, is transmitting the Truth about who and what we are, and what marriage and sex means. His burden is easy, and His yoke is light. Authenitc freedom is the freedom to do what is right, just, and true, to choose the good, not mere license to do what one wishes.

 

[twoangels]

Yeah, I was giving a very high number, which I guess would just make the whole thing very unrealistic. My mistake.

I was really just trying to make a point to ask a question. My question was, once a couple gets to a certain point after having a reasonable number of children (like maybe 4ish), are they ALLOWED to not WANT any more children, even if they are capable of it in every way? Are they allowed to be like “Ok, so we’ve had 4 children already and we feel like that’s quite enough. We could have more but we really don’t want to.” Would that be a sin for them to choose not to have anymore children simply because they feel like they’ve had enough and don’t want anymore?

I guess from reading everyone’s posts, the answer would be yes lol.

It depends how you define “to want.” There is the commandment are two commandments in the 10 commandments that deal with no coveting. Coveting is a word that can often be replaced with the word “want.” however “want” is a broader term. To covet I believe means to want with envy. It stems from a sort of discontentment and lack of appreciation for the things God has given you in life. And I do think that some potential parents are so covetous of having children that that it can truly become sinful. It can tempt them to try to get pregnant through immoral means and it can lead them to greater unhappiness caused through their sin.

I think the same can be said about being completely closed to having another child. If there is truly no grave reason to prevent a child, than you can be greedily denying you and your spouse a valid expression of love. Moreover every child conceived should be loved by their parents whether their parents’ intended that child’s conception or not. That child is a gift to be appreciated. Wanting a child and loving a child are not the same thing. In fact, if you have a child only when you covet after a child, than your love for that child is rather self serving.

So it depends on what you mean by want. No, it is not sinful for a couple to simply prefer not to get pregnant again. However it is immoral if they are insisting so much on their own wills that they are closing their hearts to the happiness found in having an appreciative spirit for the gifts God gives us.