Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?

[Doc_Keele]

Right, you’ve completely missed the point I made:shrug:

 

[Vico]

Right, you’ve completely missed the point I made:shrug:

I read it: “…ignores the difference in the endometirum between an ovulatory and an anovulatory cycle.”

Explain please, because it is not obvious that it has any bearing.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Not obvious?
You are kidding me right?

 

[Vico]

Not obvious?
You are kidding me right?

Not kidding. Are you annoyed with me?

Anovulatory cycle = no egg released
Ovulatory cycle = egg released
Breakthrough ovulation = egg released in spite of contraception

If no egg is released then no abortion is possible. Abortion is only possible with the ovulatory cycle or breakthrough ovulation. In the case of ovulation occuring, the unsuitable endometrium produced by the action of the contraceptive is an artificial effect.

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Apologies if I sounded annoyed - I wasn’t, just surprised.

If breakthrough ovulation occurs, then the endometrium will not be in the state it is in when ovulation has been suppressed, and will be receptive.

 

[Vico]

Apologies if I sounded annoyed - I wasn’t, just surprised.

If breakthrough ovulation occurs, then the endometrium will not be in the state it is in when ovulation has been suppressed, and will be receptive.

The endometrium may be unsuitable in most breakthrough ovulations. We have FDA statistics that state 1% - 2% failure rate without human error, and 3% - 14% with human error (missed pill). So say of 100 cycles, 14 are breakthrough, and 2 result in pregnancies. Then there are 12 not successful due to mucus or endometrium unsuitablity. There is a 3% pregnancy rate (no error) in a year with the mucus method of contraception, according to Planned Parenthood.

 

[Christopher68]

Married Catholics are told that practicing artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil with grave consequences to their souls. To me an act so evil should apply to people of all faiths. Yet Catholic theology also teaches that people of other denominations can be saved. This implies that, all other things being equal, married “Larry Lutheran” who is allowed to practice abc in his religion gets a “free pass” while “Charlie Catholic” who does the same burns in hell forever…this is something that’s troubled me for quite a while and my priest didn’t have a good answer… any thoughts out there? thanks

Your words: “An act so evil”

So in other words, you perceive loving married couples who use birth control as somehow being comparable to perhaps Timothy McVeigh and Chemical Ali??? After all, those are people who committed genuinely evil acts.

This is a mindset that I am not understanding.

A few comments from Dr. Keith Lockitch:

*It is significant that in opposing contraception, conservatives declare that sex must be inextricably tied to reproduction–that it is morally wrong to pursue sexual pleasure while deliberately preventing pregnancy. “To demand sexual pleasure without openness to children is to violate a sacred trust,” writes Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But this implies a certain hostility to sexual pleasure, as such: not its irrational, promiscuous pursuit, but the very act of enjoying sex as something separate from reproduction. What explains such hostility?

Consider that sexual desire is a response to personal values. For a rational person, it is not a desire for mindless, indiscriminate indulgence, but a feeling that results from the embodiment in one’s lover of one’s highest, most important values. For a couple in a serious, committed, romantic relationship, sex is a celebration of their love–an expression, in the form of intense physical pleasure, of the joy that each partner derives from the other. *

 

[una_fides]

Your words: “An act so evil”

So in other words, you perceive loving married couples who use birth control as somehow being comparable to perhaps Timothy McVeigh and Chemical Ali??? After all, those are people who committed genuinely evil acts.

This is a mindset that I am not understanding.

A few comments from Dr. Keith Lockitch:

*It is significant that in opposing contraception, conservatives declare that sex must be inextricably tied to reproduction–that it is morally wrong to pursue sexual pleasure while deliberately preventing pregnancy. “To demand sexual pleasure without openness to children is to violate a sacred trust,” writes Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But this implies a certain hostility to sexual pleasure, as such: not its irrational, promiscuous pursuit, but the very act of enjoying sex as something separate from reproduction. What explains such hostility?

Consider that sexual desire is a response to personal values. For a rational person, it is not a desire for mindless, indiscriminate indulgence, but a feeling that results from the embodiment in one’s lover of one’s highest, most important values. For a couple in a serious, committed, romantic relationship, sex is a celebration of their love–an expression, in the form of intense physical pleasure, of the joy that each partner derives from the other. *

Other genuinely evil acts that are not murder include such things as taking the Lord’s name in vain, Catholics missing Mass on Sunday, and coveting another’s possessions. These are all evil. Does that mean that someone has to die as a result or be injured other than God and his holiness? God designed sex for procreation and provided the added benefit of the pleasure as a unifying effect in marriage. One is not giving himself completely to his wife when he holds back the possibility of procreation and he excludes God by excluding the openness or willingness to complete his design.

 

[hellopeople]

One is not giving himself completely to his wife when he holds back the possibility of procreation and he excludes God by excluding the openness or willingness to complete his design.

NFP is about as effective as condoms and other forms of birth control apparently.

 

[Humbled1]

Actually, I need to apologize as well - I should have been more specific. When I said I couldn’t try for another couple of months at least I should have said that I have had to go back on ABC in order to help control the bleeding that led to me having to get another transfusion. Believe me, I wish that NFP would solve that problem, but it doesn’t. As far as the abortifacient properties go of ABC, I’m afraid that until I see a conclusive study, showing that without a doubt, this occurs - instead of seeing the words “may occur” or “could be an unintended consequence”, I’m not going to worry about it. Also, Fr. Serpa has come in on this one and I’m going along with what he says. I find him to be someone who will tell it like it is regardless of if people like or want to hear it or not. NFP is something that is dangerous for me to be on as well - without the ABC, I can wind up loosing too much blood. We had tried it twice before and stuck with it religiously - once with a monitor being used included so I thought I had backed up myself. We know we’ve had two pregnancies while religiously using it and while trying to be off of birth contol for a 6 months in order to possibly be able to try again (we try some other meds to try to help the situation), it appears that we may have had another that ended very early on. Until the Doctors at this point say I can go off of the ABC and try again, I don’t really have a choice but to use the ABC - it’s the best thing for what happens with my body. I can’t just go on having debilitating periods for the rest of my life and I will not go through a hysterectomy in order to “solve” it as this seems to be the best guess as to how to stop it. While there is a chance that we’ll be able to have children, I’ll continue on this path. Regardless of what some say on here (and I’m not meaning you -) I have someone I speak with spiritually with regards to this siutaion. I trust that persons judgement as a spiritual director and will continue to pray for understanding of what God wants.
God Bless
Rye

I’m sorry, I haven’t been back on here in awhile.

I was not suggesting that NFP would solve the bleeding issues.

I was suggesting that you utilize NFP for its contraceptive properties (or complete abstinence as recommended by another poster) and use your ABC for your medical issues. I’m suggesting both/and, not either/or.

If you and your spouse are having conjugal relations while on ABC, then you are also utilizing its contraceptive properties. The only way to prevent this is to also use NFP or abstinence to prevent contraception.

 

[una_fides]

NFP is about as effective as condoms and other forms of birth control apparently.

NFP involves abstaining from sex, which is not wrong. Artificially altering the marital act with the intention of hindering or prohibiting procreation is sinful as it violates God’s design for that act. Complete abstinence is 100% effective, but that doesn’t make it sinful (unless both husband and wife don’t agree to it of course).

 

[ryecroft]

I’m sorry, I haven’t been back on here in awhile.

I was not suggesting that NFP would solve the bleeding issues.

I was suggesting that you utilize NFP for its contraceptive properties (or complete abstinence as recommended by another poster) and use your ABC for your medical issues. I’m suggesting both/and, not either/or.

If you and your spouse are having conjugal relations while on ABC, then you are also utilizing its contraceptive properties. The only way to prevent this is to also use NFP or abstinence to prevent contraception.

Thanks for the clarification - I didn’t get what you were saying - but thanks. Having spoken with Priests and even having read Fr. Serpa’s opinion on this, we’ve determined it’s not necessary (and been told so by priests) that because I take the ABC 1st and foremost for medical reasons regarding bleeding issues (and would be taking it even if not sexually active or married)- because NFP has not worked for us in the past regardless of what we’ve tried, (and before soem go off on me for saying this, I have talked to more than one Catholic NFP teaching Doctor and tried more than one method and yes even the Pope Paul institute) there is no compelling reason that I need to be on NFP. The contraceptive nature of ABC is a secondary effect - using NFP for us would be as effective for my husband and I as taking a sugar pill for my kidney medications (not trying to offend anyone this is just our experience).
God Bless
Rye (-

 

[Doc_Keele]

The endometrium may be unsuitable in most breakthrough ovulations. We have FDA statistics that state 1% - 2% failure rate without human error, and 3% - 14% with human error (missed pill). So say of 100 cycles, 14 are breakthrough, and 2 result in pregnancies. Then there are 12 not successful due to mucus or endometrium unsuitablity. There is a 3% pregnancy rate (no error) in a year with the mucus method of contraception, according to Planned Parenthood.

You can’t use the figures in that way, it’s not sound science. It’s apples and oranges, sorry
And you haven’t factored in the proportion of zygotes that don’t implant

 

[Doc_Keele]

NFP involves abstaining from sex, which is not wrong. Artificially altering the marital act with the intention of hindering or prohibiting procreation is sinful as it violates God’s design for that act. Complete abstinence is 100% effective, but that doesn’t make it sinful (unless both husband and wife don’t agree to it of course).

NFP is artificially altering the marital act. Why the difference?
Is there a non-arbitrary difference that doesn’t rely on working backwards to distinguish between “artificial” birth control and “natural” family planning?

 

[Vico]

You can’t use the figures in that way, it’s not sound science. It’s apples and oranges, sorry
And you haven’t factored in the proportion of zygotes that don’t implant

True, it is not sound science only approximation, but neither is saying that the endometrium will be suitable with breakthrough ovulation. As one pill missed may trigger the release.

 

[jrgiancola]

It is an oxymoron to say that preventing procreation is evil but NFP is moral. Whether NFP or artificial contraception, the intent and goal is the same: prevent procreation. If preventing procreation is evil, then so is NFP. If NFP is moral, then so is artificial contraception. Either it is immoral or moral to prevent contraception; how one prevents conception is irrelevant since the intent and goal are the same in either case. The Holy Spirit does not speak in oxymorons. Either both are immoral, or both are moral.

 

[hellopeople]

It is an oxymoron to say that preventing procreation is evil but NFP is moral. Whether NFP or artificial contraception, the intent and goal is the same: prevent procreation. If preventing procreation is evil, then so is NFP. If NFP is moral, then so is artificial contraception. Either it is immoral or moral to prevent contraception; how one prevents conception is irrelevant since the intent and goal are the same in either case. The Holy Spirit does not speak in oxymorons. Either both are immoral, or both are moral.

I have to agree. It is silly to think condoms are so bad but nfp is not.

 

[Newbie2]

I have to agree. It is silly to think condoms are so bad but nfp is not.

You know, you *could *make your point without being insulting. Much different to say, “I think that X, Y or Z is silly” than “X, Y or Z is silly”. Subtle, perhaps, but many people on this forum have had struggles with this Church teaching, and many continue to struggle with it. Trivializing such difficult and deep thought on one’s faith-in-action is an insult, deliberate or not.

 

[Vico]

It is an oxymoron to say that preventing procreation is evil but NFP is moral. Whether NFP or artificial contraception, the intent and goal is the same: prevent procreation. If preventing procreation is evil, then so is NFP. If NFP is moral, then so is artificial contraception. Either it is immoral or moral to prevent contraception; how one prevents conception is irrelevant since the intent and goal are the same in either case. The Holy Spirit does not speak in oxymorons. Either both are immoral, or both are moral.

Since prevent means to keep from happening, it is not wrong to prevent procreation, since it is not wrong to mutually abstain. It is not wrong to be married and have no children, as marriage is valid even when a couple is sterile or do not consummate it.

There is a difference between desire, intention, and action. Within a valid marriage these are:

As to desire, it is not necessary to want children.

As to intention, (a) when conjugal relations occur one must be open to any children that result, and (b) in general there must not be the intention to totally exclude children from the marriage, but this is assured by the positive intention to grant conjugal rights to the spouse, which if not intended makes the marriage invalid.

As to action (a) it is not wrong to abstain from conjugal relations when mutually agreed on because there is no denial to grant the conjugal rights when asked for (when charitible and just), but (b) it is wrong to commit the marital act itself when corrupted.

Casti Canubi, Pope Pius XI (1930)
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

 

[mark_a]

Thank God for Holy Tradition!!!

ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php