R
- Status
Nice. And thank you for the scriptural support.
W
whm
Guest
I really have a hard time with the teaching on NFP. The border on faith shaking for me. What follows are the thoughts I have about it and are not intended as an argument against it. I simply do not understand.
Permissible is not the same as advisable. Just because the Church allows it under certain circumstances doesn’t mean it is always a good thing. 10-15 years ago when I read about NFP there were always strict warning to discuss it with your priest and to only use it for severe financial hardship or medical reasons. Now I rarely see those warnings. Having two new cars and a 3000 sq foot house and time to watch tv and play golf are not good enough reasons.
Misuse of NFP has some of the same side affects of birth control. You are still separating the procreative aspect. You are not open to children. When Catholics only have one or two kids because of it outsiders will assume that you are using birth control. If you explain it to them they think, “oh Catholic birth control”. It allows for the concept that children are a burden. I could see it as allowing empathy for abortion (but not by me).
I think some of the justification that are thrown out there are rather weak. I hardly consider abstaining for an extra week or so a month is that heroic of a feat. The communication could be good, but then what are you communicating about?..how to avoid having children.
I have never found satisfactory answers to those questions.
btw - I do love the St. Paul quote it is from a wonderful chapter on married life and virginity, but he is not talking about NFP, I believe he is referring to a heresy at the time where people thought all sex was bad and all even married people should live as virgins. (Nevarre Bible commentary) Also he is talking about for a time of prayer and not to avoid children.
Permissible is not the same as advisable. Just because the Church allows it under certain circumstances doesn’t mean it is always a good thing. 10-15 years ago when I read about NFP there were always strict warning to discuss it with your priest and to only use it for severe financial hardship or medical reasons. Now I rarely see those warnings. Having two new cars and a 3000 sq foot house and time to watch tv and play golf are not good enough reasons.
Misuse of NFP has some of the same side affects of birth control. You are still separating the procreative aspect. You are not open to children. When Catholics only have one or two kids because of it outsiders will assume that you are using birth control. If you explain it to them they think, “oh Catholic birth control”. It allows for the concept that children are a burden. I could see it as allowing empathy for abortion (but not by me).
I think some of the justification that are thrown out there are rather weak. I hardly consider abstaining for an extra week or so a month is that heroic of a feat. The communication could be good, but then what are you communicating about?..how to avoid having children.
I have never found satisfactory answers to those questions.
btw - I do love the St. Paul quote it is from a wonderful chapter on married life and virginity, but he is not talking about NFP, I believe he is referring to a heresy at the time where people thought all sex was bad and all even married people should live as virgins. (Nevarre Bible commentary) Also he is talking about for a time of prayer and not to avoid children.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
IMO you’re missing the forest for the trees. For me, the main 1st reason I started using NFP was because I was single & suffering from extraordinarily painful, long, heavy periods due to endometriosis. I was also concerned w/ preserving my fertility for my future marriage. Through my charts, my doctor was able to identify when & where my hormones were going crazy. I did end up having laproscopic surgery to remove the endometriosis. However, the charting actually identified that I had a light case of PCOS which would affect my future fertility.
When I got married, I immediately suffered a miscarriage. Two months afterwards, another. Both times, I knew exactly when I got pregnant because of my charts. I was able to accurately date my pregnancies and show when problems started. Most doctors do not treat or investigate only 2 miscarriages. However, since my doctor knew my history and could see my charts, he was able to help me maintain my 3rd pregnancy w/o ever actually seeing or examining me. He put me on supplemental progesterone that my charts showed would raise my levels to the normal levels for early pregnancy. Without his knowledge and my charting I would not have my lovely 16 month old son.
To say that is ‘fertility’ testing and somehow wrong strikes me as being very close-minded and definitely not letting God help those who help themselves. If you’ve ever been through a miscarriage (especially one past 10-12 weeks) you’d know that the pain and suffering is not merely physical. I would (and do) almost anything in my power to prevent that from happening again. I’ve missed out on 4 pregnancies due to my bodies inability to carry a baby. All of those may or may not have been helped by supplemental progesterone. For 2 of them I was still nursing & didn’t expect to get/be pregnant and my signs were all over the place. The other 2 were related to ignorance.
I cannot stress enough that using NFP to help solve ob/gyn issues is in NO WAY immoral or objectionable. To judge it so harshly is truly a disservice to women like me who want children, but have issues that can easily be treated and/or cured by knowing their cycle. How terrible to cast women like me aside simply b/c you think ‘fertility’ testing could possibly be immoral b/c something other than a penis goes inside a vagina.
L
Luke_K
Guest
Well, children ARE a burden, just one that we should lovingly accept. It’s responsible parenthood to not have sex when you can’t support another kid.
Contraceptives separate the procreative aspect. NFP does not. Contraceptives encourage the couple to have sex whenever they want, and when it’s the time of the month that procreation is possible, it deliberately and forcefully separates the procreative aspect that is present at that time.
NFP doesn’t separate anything. It accepts the full person-hood of the partner in that particular instance, it’s just that procreation naturally won’t occur. There are (literally) no barriers present, so what can be separated?
Imagine that having sex is like going to mass. Contraception is like if at every mass that occurs in your church, you go inside and disrupt and desecrate the worship. NFP is like if you simply don’t attend the mass. It’s best if you went to mass every day and worship fully, but if you can’t make it to daily mass for legitimate reasons, then that’s okay too.
And sure, St. Paul wasn’t talking about NFP, but it shows that it can be okay for couples to mutually agree to abstain for a while to become closer to God, which is part of NFP.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
The warnings are still out there. The CCC clearly indicates that prayerful reflection and serious reasons are needed to avoid children.
Yes, misuse can (and does) occur. However, NFP is generally too difficult for a couple who really has the birth control mindset. It requires sacrifice, study, communiation, and knowledge to be completely effective. However, even misuse of NFP doesn’t compare to the use of birth control within a marriage. At least w/ NFP there are no little souls who are killed by chemical means. At least w/ NFP the couple sacrifices something in order to prevent further births - instead of following in societies ‘free sex’ mentality. The communication is less about how to avoid having children & more about why it may be necessary at this particular time to avoid children. If you’ve ever practiced NFP & have much of a libido, you’d know that this conversation usually starts with a comment like ‘are you sure we can’t afford/whatever more kids?’ The bodily reactions are quite convincing that kids aren’t a bad thing!
While one party may be able to start listing reasons, sometimes the more willing party can easily dissuade them. That’s why typically, even in the medical field, the joke is “You know what we call people that use NFP?.. Parents.” Its just not as simple as popping a pill or putting a raincoat on.I haven’t seen that particular commentary, but it doesn’t really seem to make sense w/ the little bit of the quote that I’ve seen. However, it could just as easily be applied as we are here. The heresy that it is speaking about is ‘free sex’. Its telling us that its good to abstain once in a while by mutual consent. Sex isn’t everything to a marriage and/or people. Many of the comments in the bible & early Church fathers may not have been written specifically for today (obviously they were written for that time in history). However, the lessons can quite often be applied to situations today. That’s the beauty of scripture & history. The lesson is the same - its not necessary (or advisable) to live solely for sex or solely for abstinence. Instead, by mutual consent married couples should practice both. At least that’s what I get out of it.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Let’s look at the ACTUAL language of the Church, from the Catechism (bold/italics mine). As you can see, NFP is in moral (not mearly “permissible”) and may be used for just reasons (not serious or grave reasons, just reasons), it is also part of responsibile parenthood :
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.
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, ***is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.***158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
W
whm
Guest
I don’t disagree with anything in your post about NFP being morally allowable under certain circumstances. Clearly BiologyBrain gave a wonderful example of why it is allowable and useful.
The problem I struggle with is that is being promoted and used indefinitely to avoid children. It in itself is fine, but it is the mindset in which it is used that feels problematic to me. In your example above the couple has sex on a certain day because they expect that there is little chance of getting pregnant that day. What is their reaction when God intervenes and they get pregnant? Is there reaction any different that someone whose condom failed? This is a paradox to me.
I think people using NFP have to very clearly have sex realizing both aspects (union and procreative) with every act, If this is the attitude I think it is fine. You can reduce the chances, but if you truly don’t want a baby don’t have sex. If you are too young delay marriage. That is not what is being taught. What is being taught is the flowery stuff like self control and communication benefits. I guess this is my real problem, why have the moral requirements been dropped from so many of the pamphlets about NFP?
I hear people call radio shows all the time “it is dangerous for my wife to get pregnant” answer NFP. It would be difficult to have a baby = NFP. Getting married in college = NFP. Well what happens if they get pregnant? They should be told to also realize that as always being a possibility.
My wife dedicated an entire year of her life to prolife causes and is very orthodox RC. When she thought she was pregnant for a third time in 4 years she really lost it, very scared(me too), what are we going to do, everything is ruined. etc. I think this caused her great guilt and we ended up completely shuting that aspect of our marriage down (8 years ago). Clearly we were not open to children or else the reaction would not have been so severe. We did not have the right attitude to use NFP.
Clearly my thoughts are biased by my own experience so please do not be offended. I am really trying to work through some issues and this is a stumbling block for me.
I don’t see the moral requirements listed on the following UCCB website.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/
F
fix
Guest
There is nothing immoral about regulating births for legitimate reasons. The probelm is the means used to regulate births.
K
kerath25
Guest
You definitely have a point. The moral requirements should be listed (perhaps we can ask for them?), and every effort should be made to convey the mindset that NFP is to be used in, not simply how to practice it. People should be informed that pregnancy can still result from NFP and that they should be prepare themselves to accept that possibility.
On the other hand, I am at a loss for what should be offered to couples that feel NFP is insufficient.
P.S. Our prayers go out to you and your family.
P
Pug
Guest
Your reference to the birth control mindset seems relevant to hamburglar’s question. Maybe not the exact question, but I think it is behind why the question gets asked by some people. From the few people I know, people who use contraception are not unwilling to make sacrifices for the success of their family, are not unwilling to communicate, are not unwilling to research a topic, and are not big on free sex. Maybe the problem is I’m thinking of married people. That was part of why I could not differentiate between NFP and contraception when I was younger. The reasons for using them were the same: the benefit of the family. (Note: I do not support the use of contraception.) The “contraceptive mentality” concept made little sense to me. The “contraceptive mentality” as usually stated is not about the benefit of the family, but that was why people of my acquaintance used contraception.
I do understand that the use of contraceptives may point to an underlying view of the human person, a view that is wrong. But that view is not going to prevent a couple from successfully using NFP for awhile (nobody uses it forever
).To me, the difference more lies in what we are allowed to do, not our motivations.
F
Florida_mom
Guest
Yet, you in recent days have recommended condom usage. Your ethics are entirely questionable. And I will remind you every time you post your morals and opposition to NFP!
As for the OP—the Quiver Full Movement would be worth looking into. However that requires prayer as well. Not everyone is spiritually ready for that task. (I believe it is only based on the one line of scripture–2 if you include the psalm that is referenced.
It isn’t something that the church mandates, but it is eye opening as to permitting God to provide you children as He deems you are able to handle.
The Catholic Church is clear on why it permits NFP as a means to NATURALLY PLAN YOUR FAMILY. Perhaps reading up on that would provide some guidance.
The alternative of course is to allow a family in God’s timing. The church does not object to this at all of course.
I’m not sure where my booklets are–but they do list all of this with clear reference to Human Vitae and CCC. There is also scriptural support as listed her as well.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
I’ve not necessarily run into anyone saying that NFP should be used indefinitely unless there is some serious medical issue at work. The way NFP has always been promoted to me is that I don’t separate myself from the procreative or unitive aspects of marital relations, but I can plan **when **to have my next child. The bolded emphasis is mine, but that’s how I’ve heard NFP used for the most part. Of course, the method that I’ve used is Catholic (Creighton set up by the Pope Paul VI Institute). The booklet you’re given goes very in-depth as to what NFP requires, its benefits, its sacrifices, and alternative methods of showing intimacy w/ your spouse should you prayerfully choose to post-pone children. There’s actually an entire chapter devoted entirely to what they call SPICE - basically alternative methods of being intimate (w/n Church limits). There are also several mentions in many of the chapters about making sure you’re reasons are just enough to allow you to abstain. I think it even mentions that using NFP indefnitely (unless medically necessary) can be contrary to the true purpose and intent of NFP.
Most people that I know that practice NFP are constantly aware of the fact that it can ‘fail’ and result in a pregnancy. However, since they are committed to being open to life, its not as big of a disaster as if they were contracepting. For instance, each of my 6 pregnancies in the past 2.5 years have been ‘unplanned’ by me & my husband. My husband would much rather me use contraception (he’s not Catholic), but each time we get pregnant, the furthest thing from his mind is ‘getting rid’ of the baby. He actually is more accepting of it than I am. That’s part of what I mean about the contraceptive mentality. Most couples that contracept would be more than willing to completely avoid pregnancy and/or feel it is the ultimate devestating thing to be pregnant. Most NFP couples that I know, don’t feel that way.
Also, I don’t think its necessarily all flowery & stuff to emphasize that NFP promotes communication and self-control. I think that’s one thing that keeps people using NFP from using it w/ a contraceptive mentality. See to me, the contraceptive mentality ‘free sex’ that I mentioned in my previous post is more of an expectation of sex when I want it, as often as I want it, and nobody - God included - can tell me otherwise. It also includes ‘consequenceless’ sex. In other words, I can have sex when I want it, as often as I want it, nobody - God included - can tell me otherwise, and I don’t want any consequences (like pregnancy). In other words, I don’t want to have to control my sexual impulses any more than absolutely necessary (ie not having sex in public).
BTW you’re right that the USCCB doesn’t give any hard-fast rules on what constitutes serious/just reasons. It is left up to the individual couple. I think the presumption is that NFP is hard enough that most couples will ‘fail’ in their attempt to avoid children if their reasons aren’t serious/just enough. That’s an assumption on my part, but I think its true. I also don’t think anyone could be offended by your serious questions. You’re not saying “NFP is evil” or “NFP can’t work” or any of those inflammatory type of comments. Instead you’re admitting that you’re having trouble wrapping your mind around the reasons. That’s what we’re supposed to do - ask questions about things we don’t understand. Understanding the reasons and the whys behind rules is what makes rules easier to follow.
B
bobzills
Guest
That is what makes sense to me also. If you are using artificial man made thermometers, calendars, cycles, extensive note taking, all with the purpose of enjoying the marital bed and avoiding children at the same time, I don’t see how the intention is any different from the intention of those who are using artificial birth control. In both cases, you don’t want to have children but you want to enjoy the marital rights? The end result is the same - no children but you can have your marital privileges at the same time.
And you are really not open to life when you use NFP to avoid children, because it has been stated that NFP when used to avoid children is more effective than many other artificial methods.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
Another reason why you’re probably thinking NFP is played up as “Catholic birth control” is that a large number of Catholics do use artificial birth control. Therefore, in order to compete, NFP has to play up that its safe, effective, easy, as well as acceptable by the Church. So in effect, yes, NFP is touted as the Catholic birth control. However, once people are ‘hooked’ on the system, the long-term effects are discovered. Also, hopefully, once the couple has gone through the trouble of learning & implementing the system (most take at least a full month of abstinence to get a ‘base-line’ chart established), they’re considering & re-considering their reasons for avoiding (if that’s their goal).
However, again, the method that I’ve learned & done the most research on (Creighton) clearly and repeatedly emphasizes that NFP is difficult, can result in pregnancy (even sometimes when practiced well), should only use used in serious situations, etc. Other methods that aren’t fundamentally Catholic probably don’t emphasize those aspects as much (although they’re still all true & applicable). I know some NFP/FAM not only use ovulation predictors, but also advocate condoms as a double precaution (maybe where Budgie2 gets her ideas). However, the main thing to realize (that’s probably not very advertized) is that not all NFP is Catholic & not all NFP is equal.
I encourage you to look into the Creighton Method (type that into Google or whatever search engine you want) and the Pope Paul VI Institute for a little more information. You can also look at the Billings Method (again use Google) b/c I know it is listed as an alternative on the Couple to Couple League website. I’m also more than willing to answer any questions either on the fora or PM. I strongly encourage further study and understanding. If I can help, so much the better!
However, again, the method that I’ve learned & done the most research on (Creighton) clearly and repeatedly emphasizes that NFP is difficult, can result in pregnancy (even sometimes when practiced well), should only use used in serious situations, etc. Other methods that aren’t fundamentally Catholic probably don’t emphasize those aspects as much (although they’re still all true & applicable). I know some NFP/FAM not only use ovulation predictors, but also advocate condoms as a double precaution (maybe where Budgie2 gets her ideas). However, the main thing to realize (that’s probably not very advertized) is that not all NFP is Catholic & not all NFP is equal.
I encourage you to look into the Creighton Method (type that into Google or whatever search engine you want) and the Pope Paul VI Institute for a little more information. You can also look at the Billings Method (again use Google) b/c I know it is listed as an alternative on the Couple to Couple League website. I’m also more than willing to answer any questions either on the fora or PM. I strongly encourage further study and understanding. If I can help, so much the better!
F
fix
Guest
The intention is not at issue. The means are the issue.
NFP is nothing more than an unaltered marital act. That is always open to life as in always oriented toward life which is the exact opposite of contraception.
B
bobzills
Guest
The intention is an issue becasue the primary p;urpose of marriage is the procreation of children, and in using NFP, you are attempting to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage. Further the means used are man made and artificial, since they involve thermometers, extensive note taking, calculations, calendars, charting cycles, all with the purpose of frustrating the primary purpose of marriage. The end result is the same - no children but enjoy the marital rights.
F
fix
Guest
The Church has said the marital act is always unitive and procreative if not altered. Engaging in an unaltered act does not change the act or the primary or secondary purposes of marriage.
The means are moral because the act is not altered in any way. For it to be artifical one would need to change the act through withdrawing, or using some device or chemical or surgical intervention to frustrate the act.
[/quote]
B
bobzills
Guest
No. Frustrating the primary purpose of marriage is wrong. You don;t want children, but you want the marital rights.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
St. Catherine of Siena was the twenty-fifth child in a family of twenty-five children. If her father and mother had used NFP, she would not have been around. She would have been NFP’d out of existence.
F
fix
Guest
Right, that speaks of contraception.
Do you have evidence the Church has taught one must never space births?
- Status