What percentage of Catholics use NFP?

[DJRBsmile]

Seven Sorrows:

Their is a big distinction between nfp and abc. Just think, one you don’t have sex and one you have sex, but leave God out of the picture…simple? Who is gonna say you are bad for not having sex? is abstinence bad? When you use abc, you don’t care if God’s plan was for you to have a kid, you are going to fulfill your sexual desires and thus be selfish. on the other hand people using nfp may have sexual desires, but sacrifice and practice self control. So if you are using abc you are still having sex, you never have to control yourself. God did give women nonfertile times for a reason.

yes both people using nfp and abc don’t desire to have a kid at the moment, but nfp is leaving it into God’s hands. It is using the gift on nonfertile times that God gave us and we are just “NOT HAVING SEX!”. people who are using abc don’t care about God’s plan, they only want to fulfill their sexual desires. If they get pregnant it was a “mistake” or faulty condomn. (don’t try to say it was God’s will…yes it could be sometimes but probably not most). but if an nfp person gets pregnant it was God’s will.

IMHO, this is the best and most succinct description of the differences between ABC and NFP that I have read on this board (I have read through many of the NFP-related threads and found my head spinning with all the references, quotes, dogma, etc.:whacky: ).

As far as the poll, my vote is definitely 0 - 10%. My husband and I use NFP, but I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of parents at our children’s Catholic school have been sterilized (usually the man), and see absolutely nothing wrong or untoward about it. They don’t seem to care that it’s against Church teaching. Some parents even boldly proclaim, “Hey, when the Pope comes to babysit my kids, then I’ll let him have a say in whether or not I use birth control.”

It’s a hot button topic, that’s for sure.

 

[Toads]

I think I heard on an EWTN show that 95% of Catholics at Mass contracept. It saddens me a lot. I think the percentage is so high because we don’t hear that contraception is wrong from the pulpit on a regular basis (or any). We’re lucky however to have a priest who promotes NFP. My husband and I were married a year ago and are practicing NFP. It has been a real blessing to our marriage because we know that we are being open to the Lord’s will. We recently became trained as an NFP teacher couple and have talked with our parish priest about teaching the method to engaged couples. He said he is going to make it mandatory that they are taught the method before getting married. Hopefully we’ll be able to plant a seed!

 

[Mark_T]

siamesecat:

I dont quite get why NFP is better than contraception. You are still trying to avoid getting pregnant while having sex, and it has the same rate of effectiveness. I mean, people use use condoms or the pill sometimes still do get pregnant, and i doubt God would be stopped by a piece of rubber. I think you’re still giving god the message I dont want more children I want to use sex for selfish purposes. I dont see a problem with that at all, Im just saying why is NFP so much better than contraception if the affects are the same? (and im talking about religiously)

I found this on the New Advent website:

Because you don’t judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as NFP, but the ways they go about it are very different.

Humanae Vitae defines contraception as “every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”. Such an action actively eliminates or witholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because “every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”. Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, “a lie in the language of the body.”

If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice NFP is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman’s cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God’s gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure. One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring “serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions”. Thus it is not, as some have accused, “contraception Catholic style.”

If you examine this portion in the above paragraph (…while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring “serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions.”) it tells us that even NFP is wrong if used simply to avoid pregnacy without serious motives.

Pope Paul the IV in his encyclical Humanae Vitae wrote:

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.

I hope this gives you a better understanding of NFP.

 

[Mark_T]

Mark T:

…Pope Paul the IV in his encyclical Humanae Vitae wrote:
I hope this gives you a better understanding of NFP.

Opps, I just noticed I transposed the V and the I…of course it should be Pope Paul VI color me embarrased!

 

[Sina]

I am new to this forum as I googled NFP and the Billings Method that was taught to me today at a Catholic Marriage Preparation course today. I was shocked that I had never heard of the Billings Method. I knew about the Rythem Method and would scoff at it because I figured it wasn’t going to be reliable. A lot of my questions were answered on here, but unfortunately I see a lot of… judging on here as well. It really does seem to me that some of the people who practice NFP are angry at people who don’t, maybe because they feel they are making such a big dedication to it, while others have it so easy with contraception. It’s never easy for anyone and we shouldn’t judge, expecially when we want people to understand what NFP is all about.

I also don’t think it’s fair to talk about real Catholics who attend mass and are more educated in the faith and to talk about Catholics who may have been born into the faith and don’t bother to follow all the “rules”. I really think it’s about FAITH and your relationship with God through Christ. The Cathechism and it’s teachings, in my opinion and experience, are truths that bring a closer understanding to how we practice our faith.

 

[manualman]

Those struggling to understand the difference between NFP and barriers, try this on:

God designed our bodies with a wonderful mechanism of desire for one another. I dunno about anybody else here, but my wife and I sure notice that the woman’s desire is particularly pronounced in the fertile times. In NFP, the couple who feels unable to have (more) kids at the time must abstain during this time of heightened desire. Abstaining during this time has a certain way of TESTING the legitimacy of the NEED to avoid pregnancy, if you know what I mean. Thus, NFP has a built-in regulatory system that pushes a couple back towards openness to children. In fact, I suspect that the “failure” rate of NFP has a lot to do with this fact. For example, I know of a couple that was using NFP to avoid who went on a ski trip, had a romantic evening and made the decision to ‘go for it,’ even though they knew they were potentially fertile. This would be called a ‘failure’ by most survey methods, but actually is an example of NFP succeeding in its purpose of maintaining an orientation towards life.

Barrier contraception, on the other hand, has no such device. Quite the contrary, it merely allows the couple to indulge those frisky fertile times with nary a thought about whether their reason for avoiding pregnancy is a serious one. Over time and repetition, this habitual separation of sex and procreation can turn sex into a self-centered activity, a TAKING act instead of a giving one.

It can be tempting to dismiss the above as disrespectful of the contracepting couple’s ability to reflect on the reason for avoiding. But if you stop and honestly think about it, sexual behavior isn’t something our culture has a great track record of thinking rationally about!

 

[mercygate]

manualman:

Those struggling to understand the difference between NFP and barriers, try this on:

God designed our bodies with a wonderful mechanism of desire for one another. I dunno about anybody else here, but my wife and I sure notice that the woman’s desire is particularly pronounced in the fertile times. In NFP, the couple who feels unable to have (more) kids at the time must abstain during this time of heightened desire. Abstaining during this time has a certain way of TESTING the legitimacy of the NEED to avoid pregnancy, if you know what I mean.

Definitely, the association between fertility and increased desire drives home the connection between the pleasure associated with our sexuality and the ability to procreate a life!

 

[Dubervilles]

What if you absolutely do not want to conceive–can you use NFP and a back up method?
ABC is by no means something I take to be “frisky” whenever I want–I am quite fine with abstaining at certain times if need be…however I can’t imagine the terror I would feel if I had no medicinal ABC…
Where again can 23 year olds get a tubal…

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Dubervilles:

What if you absolutely do not want to conceive–can you use NFP and a back up method?
ABC is by no means something I take to be “frisky” whenever I want–I am quite fine with abstaining at certain times if need be…however I can’t imagine the terror I would feel if I had no medicinal ABC…
Where again can 23 year olds get a tubal…

If one has a “back up method,” then one is not using NFP. That person would be using two methods at the same time. The only back up methods I can think of are barrier methods. Using a condom during a woman’s fertile time would defeat the purpose of not using contraceptives. Partly because it would mean using a contraceptive sometimes and because it would mean having sex at one’s leisure without respecting the natural end of conception.

Also, condoms used during a woman’s fertile phase are much more likely to lead to pregnancy than abstinence. If a couple really has a serious reason to delay pregnancy, they should be abstaining.

Why would you feel terror at not having ABC?

 

[FightingFat]

When using NFP, is your intention not to prevent a pregnancy? Is the line between NFP and ABC then a rather flimsy one?

 

[setter]

FightingFat:

When using NFP, is your intention not to prevent a pregnancy? Is the line between NFP and ABC then a rather flimsy one?

How so? The intention of NFP *can be * to limit the chance of pregnancy (for serious reasons). Given this aspect of NFP, how does this make it a “flimsy line” between the difference between NFP and ABC users? I must be missing something here – can you please explain your reasoning?

 

[FightingFat]

Ultimately, your aim maybe to limit the chance of pregnancy, but it is sold as a means of altogether avoiding pregnancy, wouldn’t you agree? there is no reason for us to use contraception because NFP is reliable and allowed for us?

 

[setter]

Ultimately, your aim maybe

to limit the chance of pregnancy, but it is sold as a means of altogether avoiding pregnancy, wouldn’t you agree?
NFP has a high rate of effectiveness when properly used. The common understanding of NFP is to avoid conception for serious reasons when properly practiced. To say that NFP is “sold” as a means to “altogether avoiding pregnancy” carries with it a 100% guarantee and a bag of goods implication.

there is no reason for us to use contraception because NFP is reliable and allowed for us?

Exactly.

 

[FightingFat]

So, would it be fair to say that many faithfull Catholics use NFP as an alternative to ABC? That is, to avoid becoming pregnant?

 

[setter]

FightingFat:

So, would it be fair to say that many faithfull Catholics use NFP as an alternative to ABC? That is, to avoid becoming pregnant?

Somehow I suspected that you were going to attempt to erroneously connect the dots …however, your extrapolation/conclusion is incorrect, flat out wrong. Why? Simply because “faithful Catholics” strive to be true to Church teaching in both letter and intent/heart. To imply or consider for a second that a faithful Catholic couple’s prayerful use of NFP is in any way as ill conceived as ABC evidences a superficial understanding of the responsible regulation of birth that Catholic couples are called to exercise in the sacrament of marriage.

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

 

[FightingFat]

My sole intention is to try and understand this complex issue.

So if NFP is not about avoiding pregnancy, what is it about?

 

[setter]

FightingFat:

My sole intention is to try and understand this complex issue.

So if NFP is not about avoiding pregnancy, what is it about?

Here is the short answer but which requires more reading on your part (than is fitting to post in these condensed forum posts). NFP is about the excercise of responsible regulation of procreation. This responsibility towards the *gift of fecundity * is an aspect of conjugal fidelity, of which NFP is a morally acceptable means for faithful Catholics to employ.

For more and for starters I would direct you to read Part 3, Section 2 from the CCC – scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[setter]

FightingFat:

When using NFP, is your intention not to prevent a pregnancy? Is the line between NFP and ABC then a rather flimsy one?

Here is an article excerpt that attempts to clarify the misconsrued logic that at apparent face value makes sense, but upon deeper inspection falls apart under natural law scrutiny and application.

Apples and Oranges: The Difference Between Natural Family Planning and Contraception According to the Natural Law ~ by Scott Sullivan

 Many people regard the difference between apples and oranges as common sense. A person would be hard pressed to find someone who denied the difference. Of course, this observation is very obvious to most; hence the phrase has become a cliché. The difference is so obvious that one would be viewed as quite odd were they to try and argue their equivalence. Suppose for example, someone were to offer the following argument:

All apples are eaten for nourishment.
All oranges are eaten for nourishment.
Therefore, all apples are oranges.

 Those trained in elementary logic would immediately recognize this argument as “AAA-2”, an invalid form, committing the error known as the “fallacy of the undistributed middle”. Of course, one doesn’t have to be a logician to notice something is wrong, indeed very wrong, with this particular sort of reasoning. Interestingly enough however, many use the same sort of fallacious analysis when comparing contraception with Natural Family Planning (NFP). The line of reasoning usually goes a little like this; “Both contraception and NFP are aimed to prevent pregnancy, so there is no real difference between them. This specious argument can be applied in the same sort of invalid syllogism:

All contraception is to prevent pregnancy.
All NFP is to prevent pregnancy.
Therefore, all contraception is NFP.

 It seems that common misunderstandings about the distinction between means and ends and the inherent differences that apply to NFP, contraception, and the natural law give rise to the above logical error. A good or neutral end can be achieved by proper or improper means.  For instance, imagine two men, each desiring to purchase the same automobile; one works and saves his money to purchase the car; while the other does not waste any time and steals it. Here we have the same end attained by different means, payment vs. theft. Once one realizes this distinction between means and ends and that the end does not justify the means, further explanation is required to determine they are morally distinctive means, and more importantly, why the Church teaches that NFP is an accepted means and contraception, on the contrary, is not.

archindy.org/prolife/appleoranges.htm

 

[FightingFat]

Thanks Setter.

I’m familiar with the CCC and I have read Humanae Vitae too. That other excerpt doesn’t make much sense to me really as it seems to avoid the actually human issue prefering a philosophical argument instead.

I have read some really good discussions here about NFP- how it causes you to think every time you make love to your wife- don’t think of here as an object and bring God into that part of your marriage etc. I just really can’t see how if you fullfill all those criteria, God is that interested in what you do in the bedroom.

 

[svoboda]

FightingFat:

My sole intention is to try and understand this complex issue.

So if NFP is not about avoiding pregnancy, what is it about?

No matter what people say, in the end NFP comes down to allowing couples to make love without getting pregnant. It’s just like birth control, the only difference is that instead of preventing the sperm from meeting the egg it avoids the situation altogether by being intimate only when there is no egg.

The intent is the same, the result is the same. The biology of the means seems to be amoral.