Why is NFP special?

[TheTrueCentrist]

The Catholic church teaches that birth control agents like condoms and the pill are unacceptable for a variety of reasons, while NFP is given a green light. Why is that? I have listed some arguments for NFP, and critically evaluated them.

1. They do not allow for the possibility of conception, the natural and good product of love expressed through sex.

Proponents of NFP are quick to point out that “mainstream” methods are not 100% effective and NFP is comparable to condoms etc in terms of effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. In this regard, “eliminating the possibility of conception” is not really a difference between NFP and other contraceptive methods. As an aside, this reminds me of many historical instances of religious opposition to medicine. It was felt that sickness was a divine punishment and that medicines were subversive to the will of God. Compare these responses: if God wanted to punish someone, do you really think medicine would get in His way? If God wanted a couple to have a baby, would a condom thwart Him?

1. NFP is “natural” and other contraceptives treat fertility as a problem.

If fertility is not a problem, why does NFP exist? It certainly seems like a solution to something. Was the method developed for fun or was necessity the mother of invention? In practice, most couples have times in their lives when a pregnancy would be very problematic regardless of what contraceptive method they use.

1. Anything other than NFP is unhealthy.

So is smoking, but it is not considered immoral (in moderation.) Further, many NFP alternatives are extremely safe, and concerns about their safety are largely overblown by those with a religious agenda.

1. NFP has benefits like fertility awareness and improved communication.

I am not saying that NFP is bad; there is no reason why its methods couldn’t be used in conjunction with other contraceptives.

edit (I forgot #5!)

1. Other methods can promote sinful behaviors (e.g. promiscuity)

I see no reason why a woman could not chart her own cycles and use the information to plan periods of promiscuity.

 

[jilly4ski]

I could not answer your poll, because I “use” NFP neither to avoid nor to achieve pregnancy, but I still use it (and nothing else) when I am not pregnant. It gives me information about my body and cycle and it lets me know if I might be pregnant, so I can avoid alcohol and take prenatal vitamins during the time when I could have conceived.

As far as why NFP is special. NFP is allowed to space children under just circumstances. It is special because unlike other forms of birth control it preserves the purposes of the marital act. Both procreative and unitive purposes are preserved during each marital act.

1. Of course NFP’ers say it can be just as effective as ABC, it would make a pretty poor method if it wasn’t. The catechism says that people have just reasons for avoiding children sometimes, but they cannot use immoral means. For people to choose NFP over ABC (especially since it takes work and sacrifice), NFP needs to work just as well as ABC.
2. NFP being natural is just a extra benefit. It does not harm the body with it use. Part of why we as Catholics can use NFP is because we are not mutilating a perfectly working part of our bodies when we use it. This is why when a woman has problems with her fertility cycle the church allows her to take “the Pill” for medical reasons.
3. See above

4.This is a great side benefit to using NFP, (see me personal experience above), but not the reason why the Church allows us to use it.

1. I suppose one could chart ones cycle and then plan to only be promiscuous when there is no danger of pregnancy. Of course NFP doesn’t protect against STDs. And I am sure ones partners in promiscuity will be very understanding when you tell them to get lost for a week or more.

So in summary the Church does not say that NFP is acceptable for these reasons (except for part #2 in not mutilating healthy part of ones body). These are nice (except #5) side benefits to NFP and help to make NFP “good”. But the reason NFP is allowed is because it maintains the purposes of marriage while still allowing the parents to practice “responsible parenthood” and space children for just reasons.

 

[Pug]

Abstinence is special because one does nothing to alter the fertility of the act that is available on that day. A couple chooses to have relations or not that day, based upon whatever rational reason they have. All the other methods are attempts to alter fertility downward in some way, condoms alter the fertility of the act that day, the pill alters the fertility of a whole series of acts that follow taking the pill, and sometimes people try things after the act to reduce fertility. With absinence, you either take it or leave it. You don’t try to reduce it before, during, or after.

 

[Corki]

The short answer is that NFP is not an alternative to artificial contraception. When NFP is used to avoid conception, it is an alternative to abstinence. Comparing NFP to other methods of birth control is illogical.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Abstinence is special because one does nothing to alter the fertility of the act that is available on that day. A couple chooses to have relations or not that day, based upon whatever rational reason they have. All the other methods are attempts to alter fertility downward in some way, condoms alter the fertility of the act that day, the pill alters the fertility of a whole series of acts that follow taking the pill, and sometimes people try things after the act to reduce fertility. With absinence, you either take it or leave it. You don’t try to reduce it before, during, or after.

This is a tricky distinction. You say that methods are sinful when they decrease the fertility of a specific instance of sex. I think the best way to understand these things is to have some specific examples.

If a couple uses a condom in conjunction with NFP on a fertile day, it is sinful because they have reduced the fertility of the act, this is a clear conclusion.

What happens if a couple uses a condom on a non-fertile day? For the sake of argument, we will say that there was a 0% chance of pregnancy on this non-fertile day. The use of a condom cannot decrease the fertility of the act any further. It would therefore be acceptable.

Further, let us say that a woman has been NFP’ing for long enough to accurately predict her cycles. She then goes on the pill, however she and her husband continue to abstain on days where she would have been fertile. Assuming the rates of accidental pregnancy between perfect-use NFP and the pill are comparable, then we can conclude that each time the couple had sex the fertility was equivalent AND they did not have sex when the woman’s fertility was artificially lowered (i.e. the days she would have been fertile while not on the pill.)

 

[jilly4ski]

What happens if a couple uses a condom on a non-fertile day? For the sake of argument, we will say that there was a 0% chance of pregnancy on this non-fertile day. The use of a condom cannot decrease the fertility of the act any further. It would therefore be acceptable.

This is still wrong. The Church uses very precise language when it discusses these matters because they are dealing with theological and philosophical principles. The Church say we cannot change the specific act to make it different no matter what time you engage in it. Using a condom, using the Church’s definition, is still unacceptable because the couple is changing the nature of the marital act.

Further, let us say that a woman has been NFP’ing for long enough to accurately predict her cycles. She then goes on the pill, however she and her husband continue to abstain on days where she would have been fertile. Assuming the rates of accidental pregnancy between perfect-use NFP and the pill are comparable, then we can conclude that each time the couple had sex the fertility was equivalent AND they did not have sex when the woman’s fertility was artificially lowered (i.e. the days she would have been fertile while not on the pill.)

The Church would actually allow the woman to go on the Pill for a medical reason. She may abstain during a time while on the Pill as a pious act, (though I don’t believe it to be necessary). However, the Pill does not actually let a woman cycle. Therefore, no matter how good she was at NFP’ing before she could not predict when she would ovulate while on the pill, because she is not cycling. Combining the Pill and NFP would never work because of break through ovulation could happen anytime while on the pill.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The short answer is that NFP is not an alternative to artificial contraception. When NFP is used to avoid conception, it is an alternative to abstinence. Comparing NFP to other methods of birth control is illogical.

A couple cannot enter into a marriage intending to abstain completely from sex, so I’m not sure I would say that NFP is an alternative to abstinance. If anything I would say abstinence is an alternative to getting married.

It makes sense to compare them because their purposes are usually the same, that is to say, people practicing NFP and people using other contraceptive methods are usually trying to prevent pregnancy.

 

[1ke]

1. They do not allow for the possibility of conception, the natural and good product of love expressed through sex.
2. NFP is “natural” and other contraceptives treat fertility as a problem.
3. Anything other than NFP is unhealthy.
4. NFP has benefits like fertility awareness and improved communication.
5. Other methods can promote sinful behaviors (e.g. promiscuity)

None of these are the basis of the Church’s teaching regarding contraception, therefore your arguments against them are not relevant.

So, perhaps you’d like to put these aside and discuss the Church’s actual teaching.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This is still wrong. The Church uses very precise language when it discusses these matters because they are dealing with theological and philosophical principles. The Church say we cannot change the specific act to make it different no matter what time you engage in it. Using a condom, using the Church’s definition, is still unacceptable because the couple is changing the nature of the marital act.

In what way did it change the nature of the act? I have set up the example such that the chance of conception is 0 either way.

The Church would actually allow the woman to go on the Pill for a medical reason. She may abstain during a time while on the Pill as a pious act, (though I don’t believe it to be necessary).

…So you can use the pill as long as it is not for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. However, it is acceptable to attempt to prevent pregnancy using NFP in case of serious need. Why then is it unacceptable to use the pill to prevent pregnancy in the case of serious need?

However, the Pill does not actually let a woman cycle. Therefore, no matter how good she was at NFP’ing before she could not predict when she would ovulate while on the pill, because she is not cycling. Combining the Pill and NFP would never work because of break through ovulation could happen anytime while on the pill.

I understand how the pill works, and that NFP has no forecasting ability if you were to switch to the pill. I was constructing a scenario in which the pill would be similar to abstinence by Pug’s criterion: “Abstinence is special because one does nothing to alter the fertility of the act that is available on that day.”
Lets see if I can make a chart:
NFP prediction|-|-|-|-|f|f|f|f|f|-|-|-|-
Pill reality|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
Difference|0|0|0|0|f|f|f|f|f|0|0|0|0
Have sex?|y|y|y|y|n|n|n|n|n|y|y|y|y
So as you can see, in no cases do they have sex on a day with reduced fertility.

edit f stands for fertile and - means some negligible level of fertility.

 

[Pug]

This is a tricky distinction. You say that methods are sinful when they decrease the fertility of a specific instance of sex. I think the best way to understand these things is to have some specific examples.

If a couple uses a condom in conjunction with NFP on a fertile day, it is sinful because they have reduced the fertility of the act, this is a clear conclusion.

What happens if a couple uses a condom on a non-fertile day? For the sake of argument, we will say that there was a 0% chance of pregnancy on this non-fertile day. The use of a condom cannot decrease the fertility of the act any further. It would therefore be acceptable.

Further, let us say that a woman has been NFP’ing for long enough to accurately predict her cycles. She then goes on the pill, however she and her husband continue to abstain on days where she would have been fertile. Assuming the rates of accidental pregnancy between perfect-use NFP and the pill are comparable, then we can conclude that each time the couple had sex the fertility was equivalent AND they did not have sex when the woman’s fertility was artificially lowered (i.e. the days she would have been fertile while not on the pill.)

You are right, it is more than reducing fertility. It is also rendering procreating more difficult or impossible, if it were to happen, as far as I can tell. If Abraham and Sarah had worn a condom, it would have made Isaac more difficult, so to speak. Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so it is not really like one could stop Isaac from happening with a condom. But Sarah was too old, so Isaac was already truly impossible, so it is hard to see how a condom could have made a difference. Still, it would have mattered, it seems to me. It expresses something about making procreation more difficult. Wearing one seems to stand in the way of procreating, even when the couple is very old, in a rather abstract sense.

I think the pill alters a woman’s cycles too much for your other example to be anything other than hypothetical, in terms of knowledge. However, I can definitely imagine some couple trying to do this behavior, so it is not hypothetical in the realm of what people actually do. But the fertility is not likely to be equivalent. It has been changed from what it would have been on a particular day if she had not taken the pill.

It may well not be a case of contraception, though, with that couple you describe and the pill. It may be perfectly legit. It is okay to take the pill for some medical condition. Then it would seem the couple is abstaining in order to feel better about being stuck taking the pill.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

None of these are the basis of the Church’s teaching regarding contraception, therefore your arguments against them are not relevant.

So, perhaps you’d like to put these aside and discuss the Church’s actual teaching.

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, … in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, … proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

I summarized as “They do not allow for the possibility of conception, the natural and good product of love expressed through sex.”

I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear.

Edit, also Pope Paul VI
“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

He essentially argues that contraception leads to immoral behaviors

 

[jilly4ski]

In what way did it change the nature of the act? I have set up the example such that the chance of conception is 0 either way.

Because the couple is intentionally making the marital act infertile. It has nothing to do with the couples actual chance of conceiving. When a couple has sex during the infertile period they are not rendering the act infertile. But when they use some sort of artificial birth control they are rendering the act infertile (regardless of where the woman is in her cycle or the infertility of either person).

…So you can use the pill as long as it is not for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. However, it is acceptable to attempt to prevent pregnancy using NFP in case of serious need. Why then is it unacceptable to use the pill to prevent pregnancy in the case of serious need?

The pill is allowed for medical purposes. Just like a hysterectomy would be allowed for medical purposes or any other medication that could cause fetal death or prevent ovulation. This is the theory of double effect, ie unintended side effects.

I understand how the pill works, and that NFP has no forecasting ability if you were to switch to the pill. I was constructing a scenario in which the pill would be similar to abstinence by Pug’s criterion: “Abstinence is special because one does nothing to alter the fertility of the act that is available on that day.”
Lets see if I can make a chart:
NFP prediction|-|-|-|-|f|f|f|f|f|-|-|-|-
Pill reality|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
Difference|0|0|0|0|f|f|f|f|f|0|0|0|0
Have sex?|y|y|y|y|n|n|n|n|n|y|y|y|y
So as you can see, in no cases do they have sex on a day with reduced fertility.

edit f stands for fertile and - means some negligible level of fertility.

Except they could be having sex on a day of “reduced fertility”. Because the Pill stops the cycle we don’t know if one of those months the couple would have had to abstain longer than normal or if the woman ovulated early or late. But this aside since why would they use the Pill and abstain (except for medical reasons)? Why not just use NFP?
When Pug was referring to fertility he wasn’t saying it in the way that you meant, ie fertile day. Indeed even on non-fertile days women still have “fertility” but when one uses ABCs they are intentionally making themselves infertile and refusing to give their whole selves (including their fertility or lack thereof) to their spouse. Abstaining on the other hand, (when mutually agreed upon) is a non act.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

As for “intentionally making the marriage act infertile,” if they already know the woman is infertile, they likewise know that wearing a condom will not change that. You can’t make something double-infertile… unless the opposite of “fertile” was “deadly” and sex with a condom somehow killed someone…

The issue with the pill is that obviously taking the pill is not wrong by itself (you even speculated having sex while taking the pill may be permissible.) Neither is postponing pregnancy. So why not use the pill to postpone pregnancy?

Except they could be having sex on a day of “reduced fertility”. Because the Pill stops the cycle we don’t know if one of those months the couple would have had to abstain longer than normal or if the woman ovulated early or late. But this aside since why would they use the Pill and abstain (except for medical reasons)? Why not just use NFP?

Say they were going to be missionaries in a violent country and were concerned about rape. Alternatively, maybe the woman has some slight menstrual problems (not enough to make BC medically necessary, but enough for her to want relief.) Sin requires will and knowledge, they would be doing their best to not have sex on days that would have been fertile, but obviously there is no way to know what would have happened had they not taken the pill. So maybe they increase the bounds around the fertile time… say 4 days beyond what NFP predicts, that would probably cover most natural fluctuations beyond some serious illness.

When Pug was referring to fertility he wasn’t saying it in the way that you meant, ie fertile day. Indeed even on non-fertile days women still have “fertility” but when one uses ABCs they are intentionally making themselves infertile and refusing to give their whole selves (including their fertility or lack thereof) to their spouse. Abstaining on the other hand, (when mutually agreed upon) is a non act.

So fertility is not related to the possibility of conception? I would have thought that those are essentially the same thing. The effectiveness of NFP is predicated on practical infertility during certain times of the cycle. I am saying that for the sake of this discussion the woman knows exactly when she is fertile and when she is infertile.

Am I correct in reading your argument as: even though wearing a condom does not practically change the chance of conception, it represents the couple’s rejection of the possibility of conception? Because if that is the case, they have already rejected the possibility of conception by refusing to have sex on days when conception could happen. That is to say, it would be sinful for a couple to enter into a marriage and using NFP to avoid conception for the entirety of the marriage.

Say that you had it in your power to increase the fertility of the act, would it be a sin of omission to choose not to do so?

 

[Corki]

A couple cannot enter into a marriage intending to abstain completely from sex, so I’m not sure I would say that NFP is an alternative to abstinance. If anything I would say abstinence is an alternative to getting married.

It makes sense to compare them because their purposes are usually the same, that is to say, people practicing NFP and people using other contraceptive methods are usually trying to prevent pregnancy.

A couple cannot enter into a marriage intending to completely avoid having children either.

NFP can be used to both delay the next child or to help a couple conceive. Neither abstinence nor artificial birth control can do both.

 

[1ke]

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, … in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, … proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

I summarized as “They do not allow for the possibility of conception, the natural and good product of love expressed through sex.”

I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear.

Edit, also Pope Paul VI
“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

He essentially argues that contraception leads to immoral behaviors

Yes, in these particular quotes, the Popes are discussing the consequences of ignoring the moral law.

However, in neither quote is the Pope addressing why contraception is immoral.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yes, in these particular quotes, the Popes are discussing the consequences of ignoring the moral law.

However, in neither quote is the Pope addressing why contraception is immoral.

Why don’t you enlighten me then?

 

[Catholic_Wife]

1. NFP has benefits like fertility awareness and improved communication.

I hate when NFP proponents say this because it isn’t always true. If anything, NFP led to a breakdown in communication and quite a few arguments. My husband doesn’t want to know anything about my cycle because he was raised to believe that that information is personal and private to the woman and that nobody – not even her husband – should know about it. He doesn’t want to ‘plan’ when the optimum time for us to possibly conceive (or avoid conceiving) because he believes it’s “playing God” – he believes we should just enjoy each other, trust God and accept whatever God gives us (or doesn’t give us).

The only reason I bother charting my symptoms is to know if I have actually ovulated, when my period is due and if I could possibly be pregnant.