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

[AskSeekKnock]

I understand and respect the teaching that contraception interferes with God’s plan, and that to partake in his gift of sexuality without simultaneous openness to the creation of new life is to take only half of what God intended for us.

I’m having a hard time understanding, however, why it is that natural family planning (NFP) is ok when it is, in fact, a method of contraception. Modern symptothermal fertility awareness, complete with basal body temperature, cervical monitoring, luteinizing hormone assays, etc. make NFP more effective than condoms when used correctly. So there is less “openness” to new life, statistically speaking, with NFP and yet NFP is acceptable while condoms are not.

In a similar vein, intercourse during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle can never result in pregnancy, and an NFP couple knows this well. Do they then sin having intercourse then, since there is no openness to new life at that time? What about intercourse when a woman is already pregnant - no chance for another pregnancy then, so no openness to creation there either. And intercourse after menopause - is that sinful?

 

[1ke]

I understand and respect the teaching that contraception interferes with God’s plan,

This is not why contraception is wrong.

and that to partake in his gift of sexuality without simultaneous openness to the creation of new life is to take only half of what God intended for us.

Each act of intercourse must be objectively unitive and procreative-- unaltered.

I’m having a hard time understanding, however, why it is that natural family planning (NFP) is ok when it is, in fact, a method of contraception.

Natural family planning is not contraception.

Contraception is an action taken by the couple before, during, or after intercourse to render it sterile.

Natural family planning does not take any action before, during or after intercourse to render that act of intercourse sterile. Every time the couple engages in intercourse, it is unaltered in any way.

Modern symptothermal fertility awareness, complete with basal body temperature, cervical monitoring, luteinizing hormone assays, etc. make NFP more effective than condoms when used correctly.

Effectiveness is not the basis of the Church’s teaching that contraception is wrong.

So there is less “openness” to new life, statistically speaking, with NFP and yet NFP is acceptable while condoms are not.

“Openness to life” is not the basis of the Church’s teaching.

The teaching is that each act of intercourse the couple chooses to engage in must be unaltered-- it must be as God ordered it, ordered to unity and procreation.

In a similar vein, intercourse during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle can never result in pregnancy, and an NFP couple knows this well. Do they then sin having intercourse then, since there is no openness to new life at that time?

No.

What about intercourse when a woman is already pregnant - no chance for another pregnancy then, so no openness to creation there either.

No.

And intercourse after menopause - is that sinful?

No.

Each act of completed intercourse that is unaltered by the couple is objectively ordered to unity and procreation. Subjectively that particular act may or may not result in conception. As long as the couple takes no action to render the act sterile they are doing nothing wrong. God ordered the body and the cycle so that it is naturally infertile at various times. If a couple engages in a completed act of intercourse, they have still engaged in an properly ordered act.

 

[judechild]

AskSeekKnock,

NFP is to contraception like dieting is to induced vomiting.

What I mean by that is that NFP works with the bodies of the spouses, completely natural in the way it is accomplished - just like dieting works with the body to produce the desired effect. Contraception, on the other hand, is unnatural because it does not work with the way the body is naturally built. It blocks something, or destroys something - like induced vomiting. Induced vomiting will produce the same effect as dieting, but goes about it in an unnatural and harmful way.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I understand and respect the teaching that contraception interferes with God’s plan, and that to partake in his gift of sexuality without simultaneous openness to the creation of new life is to take only half of what God intended for us.

I’m having a hard time understanding, however, why it is that natural family planning (NFP) is ok when it is, in fact, a method of contraception. Modern symptothermal fertility awareness, complete with basal body temperature, cervical monitoring, luteinizing hormone assays, etc. make NFP more effective than condoms when used correctly. So there is less “openness” to new life, statistically speaking, with NFP and yet NFP is acceptable while condoms are not.

In a similar vein, intercourse during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle can never result in pregnancy, and an NFP couple knows this well. Do they then sin having intercourse then, since there is no openness to new life at that time? What about intercourse when a woman is already pregnant - no chance for another pregnancy then, so no openness to creation there either. And intercourse after menopause - is that sinful?

This is indeed a very complicated issue. I myself still struggle with it, but I admit that I trust the church. She hasn’t led me wrong in anything, so I don’t accept they’d lead me wrong with this.

Having said that I can give you the answers the church has given and my personal opinion:

Pregnancy, post menopause, infertility- In these instances the point of sex is leaning towards the unitive qualities. The couple is partaking in a physical symbolic act of love. No holds barred, this means no one is removing anything from the sexual act or adding to it. The chances for pregnancy is miniscule (not impossible, as there are cases of women getting pregnant WHILE being pregnant, miracles in scripture of old women conceiving, and of course “barren” women conceiving too). This is also why the church teaches that those on medication that alter fertility (hormonal treatments or those having had a hysterectomy) do not need to refrain from having sex. The unitive function of sex is still in play.

Articifical birth control vrs NFP - This is another instance where both the procreative and the unitive act are compromised. A condom is basically saying “I love you, but not enough to give you everything.” which is what sex really is about, and a woman contracepting is saying the same by denying herself from her husband. Sex is meant to be the ultimate giving and selfless act. If we hold ourselves back from our spouse, we belittle that. If we treat sex as if it were just for our pleasure then we have an even bigger problem.

I do admit that I myself get hung up on the “openess to life” front given that most people treat NFP as “catholic birth control.” and boast high effectiveness in preventing pregnancy…but, this is where I trust what the church says. 2,000 years of teaching, plus thousands of very learned people studying the issue is certainly far more reliable than my fragile conscience!

 

[manualman]

Glib answer: For precisely the reason people are desperate to avoid practicing NFP and want to use contraception instead - it’s hard. Most healthy things in life are harder than unhealthy things. Using NFP to avoid conception requires the couple to abstain from sex during the fertile time. This sexual ‘fast’ is what helps the couple avoid the divorce between sex and babies that occurs when they use contraception.

It’s pretty clear that God made sex for BOTH the unitive value to the couple and for procreation (makin’ babies). But perhaps we’ve jumped the gun in thinking that just because it is easy to PHYSICALLY separate those two functions that the emotional and spiritual functions sever just as neatly. They don’t. Contracepting couples subtly change the NATURE of sex into something mutually selfish - it’s about the pleasure. NFP, by requiring abstinance during the fertile time, tends towards keeping the ‘baby’ part of sex attached (you think hard about babies monthly!), even when serious reasons argue against havng another right now. That helps keep the sex in the mutually giving attitude it is supposed to be instead of turning into a mindset of “gettin’ some.”

 

[tjm190]

Contraception ‘corrupts’ individual acts of procreation, and as such corrupts the human reproductive process.

NFP ‘corrupts’ the human reproductive directly.

So, by using lambasting contraception for corrupting the individual acts, you can keep NFP.

Edit- since you appear to be a potential convert, I’ll let those ‘inline’ with Church teaching do most of the talking, unless you request more information from me.

 

[AskSeekKnock]

I should probably be clear about two things:

1. I was a cradle Catholic, left the Church in college and was Protestant for 10 years, and am now in the midst of a reversion.
2. I have used NFP in my marriage for 6 years, both to successfully avoid conception when desired, and to successfully conceive twice when desired. (Medical problems made other, more convenient contraceptive methods too risky). It was hard to learn, but I don’t find it hard to practice - in my opinion, this is one of the persistent myths of NFP that keeps people from giving it a try.

However it’s also a myth that NFP is not effective. It is effective, and therefore in my mind we ARE “contracepting”. We conceive when we want, and don’t when we don’t want. I find it hard to understand the distinction that renders this “manipulation” of our union ok and “different” from other forms of contraception.

 

[AskSeekKnock]

Edit- since you appear to be a potential convert, I’ll let those ‘inline’ with Church teaching do most of the talking, unless you request more information from me.

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is very welcome.

 

[1ke]

However it’s also a myth that NFP is not effective. It is effective, and therefore in my mind we ARE “contracepting”.

Effectiveness has nothing to do with whether or not NFP is contracpetion. It isn’t because it doesn’t alter the marital embrace in any way.

Contraception is an action you take to render a sex act sterile. NFP is not an action nor does it separate the unitive and procreative elements of the sex act in order to render it sterile.

NFP is information, that’s all it is.

The decision of the couple to engage in the sex act or refrain from it is always there. I’m not having sex with my husband right now. Is not having sex contraception? No. It is abstention, which has always been taught by the Church to be acceptable. The Church does not teach we must have sex with any particular frequency. It merely teaches that when we do, we can take no action to alter it.

We conceive when we want, and don’t when we don’t want.

The Church teaches one must have just reasons to avoid. If a person doesn’t have just reasons, then there is a sin involved. It simply isn’t the sin of contraception.

I find it hard to understand the distinction that renders this “manipulation” of our union ok and “different” from other forms of contraception.

You aren’t manipulating your union at all. You have sex. It completely unaltered. It’s a completed act of intercourse.

How, exactly, do you believe you are altering the marital act?

 

[mardukm]

However it’s also a myth that NFP is not effective. It is effective, and therefore in my mind we ARE “contracepting”. We conceive when we want, and don’t when we don’t want. I find it hard to understand the distinction that renders this “manipulation” of our union ok and “different” from other forms of contraception.

Everytime a couple foregoes sex, it is contraception ---- according to your definition. And if contraception is wrong, should people try to have sex all the time? And if people are not having sex, are we then intentionally sinning?

Obviously, there is a difference between NFP and contraception.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[psalm42]

I recommend reading “The Good News about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. I am almost finished reading the book and he clearly states the differences between artificial contraception and NFP. I would go into detail but I feel that he can explain it better than I could at this point. It is a very excellent book and I am so glad it was placed in my hands to read!!!

 

[Luke_K]

Quote from Christopher West:

“What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it is naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin and the other is not. It is exactly the same with contraception and NFP…
First, it is important to realize that the Church has never said it is inherently wrong to avoid children. But the end (avoiding children) does not justify the means. There may well be a good reason for you to wish Grandma would pass on to the next life. Perhaps she is suffering terribly with age and disease. But this does not justify killing her. Similarly, you may have a good reason to avoid conceiving a child…But no scenario justifies rendering the sexual act sterile, just as no scenario justifies killing Grandma.
Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands- just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do- and we make ourselves like to God (see Genesis 3:5). Therefore, as the Pope concludes, “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as never to be, 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” (Address, October 10, 1983.)

AskSeekKnock,

NFP is to contraception like dieting is to induced vomiting.

What I mean by that is that NFP works with the bodies of the spouses, completely natural in the way it is accomplished - just like dieting works with the body to produce the desired effect. Contraception, on the other hand, is unnatural because it does not work with the way the body is naturally built. It blocks something, or destroys something - like induced vomiting. Induced vomiting will produce the same effect as dieting, but goes about it in an unnatural and harmful way.

Another analogy is that NFP is to contraception as being potty trained is to wearing a diaper.

 

[Bookcat]

see the compendium #497 and #498

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[marchoi]

Your questioning makes perfect sense and it’s a legitimate question to ask, esp. when people tout NFP as being super-effective in avoiding pregnancies - which seems to be the purpose of artificial contraception.

The idea behind NFP is to use natural methods to avoid or delay pregnancies while maintaining the integrity of the marital act. The problem with artificial contraception is that - in one way or another - you introduce a third party, the contraceptive method. NFP takes into account the wife’s (it better be the wife ) natural fertility cycle to help plan pregnancies instead of “tinkering” with anything.

As many have stated, the efficacy of a method does not make it immoral. Otherwise the Church would prohibit marital acts between sterile couples (e.g. the wife has reached menopause or one or both spouse suffer from sterility). Or, for that matter, abstinence, which has been proven to be 100% effective in avoiding pregnancies! It’s the artificial nature of most contraceptives that the Church sees as violating the natural integrity of the marital act. This is also why the Church is opposed to in vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers - even if it produces children, it’s not the way marital acts are supposed to work.

 

[bleh_confused]

i agree with askseekknock, it pretty much functions as contraception, no matter what legalistic way people try to defend it.

eveyone is saying that the oppurtunity for procreation is still there, but by deliberately having sex during an infertile time in the cycle you in effect do nothing more than use natural contraception, and procreation is totally thrown aside. a possibility for procreation means that there is a possibility a child will be conceived, but when you have sex during an infertile time there is no possibility for a new life. sounds like contraception to me

 

[1ke]

i agree with askseekknock, it pretty much functions as contraception, no matter what legalistic way people try to defend it.

Well, if I need money to feed my family I can rob a store or get a job. They “pretty much function the same” as far as getting money goes. But they are different morally.

The ends and means are separate things.

Contracpetion and naturally familly planning have the same end-- spacing/avoiding children. The Church does not teach that this end is immoral. They are two different means of achieving the same end, and one is moral and the other is not. They are in no way similar.

eveyone is saying that the oppurtunity for procreation is still there, but by deliberately having sex during an infertile time in the cycle you in effect do nothing more than use natural contraception, and procreation is totally thrown aside.

“everyone” is not saying that the “opportunity” for procreation is there. I clearly did not say this, because the Church does not teach this as the reason contraception is immoral.

Each sex act must be ordered to procreation and unity. It must be an unaltered act of intercourse. You can choose not to engage in the marital act, but if you do you cannot alter it.

a possibility for procreation means that there is a possibility a child will be conceived, but when you have sex during an infertile time there is no possibility for a new life.

This is not the basis of church teaching and has nothing to do with the immorality of contraception.

sounds like contraception to me

Your conclusion is based on an inaccurate understanding of what the Church actually teaches.

 

[Fran65]

I finally, finally understand this - integrity and unity of the marital act; the separation of ends and means.

Contraception and NFP was something that I struggled with for a long time, but reading this thread has led to the penny dropping.

Thank you!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Just wanted to jump in and point out that some couples use NFP to GET pregnant. The same cannot be said for contraceptives. Therein lies the biggest difference, IMO.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

One thing I was told was that it takes four things to conceive a baby: a man, a woman, intercourse and God. Which one does contraception eliminate?

Second, NFP is supposed to be practiced with regret, not as the normal course of married life. NFP is there when it is necessary to delay a baby due to serious reasons, such as the mother’s health, etc.

Our normal course should be openness to whenever God wishes to bless us with another child.

One time my husband and I were discussing this because I am in a high risk category and was told after my sixth that we shouldn’t have more. (Although we’re considering a second opinion on that…) In frustration I said, “I just wish we knew the mind of God on this!” A bit later my husband thoughtfully responded, "We do know the mind of God. He said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’ "

Yes, we use NFP with regret. It seems there ought to be more of them around the table…

Tracy

 

[Vico]

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops published a document on marriage.


In there is it stated that the proper openess to procreation involves acknowledging that we are not the master of the sources of life. (As taught by Pope Paul VI.)

Therefore we should not attempt to have mastery over procreation, but keep it natural. So we exclude contraceptive technologies such as hormones (e.g., estrogen and/or progestin), sterilization, poisons, and barriers, but accept abstinence.