Natural Family Planning Discussion

[CatherineM]

I'd just like to put my two cents in as someone who first practiced NFP in order to become pregnant. It worked well, but after more than one miscarriage, and almost dying with the last one, we now practice NFP to prevent conception. We were very open to life, but to continue as we were would have led to more dead children, and maybe my husband as a widower. It's not a simple philosophical discussion for me.

To say that people who don't have sex is illicit contraception is kind of weird to me. Does that mean every engaged couple who wait until married to have sex are committing a sin by using NFP contraception? There is a period of time after having a child that women aren't supposed to have sex, so if she is ovulating during that time does that mean she is committing a sin by following doctor's orders?

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh wow. I DO NOT like being the one that officially started this topic.
Mostly kidding, of course, but it's rather awkward for it to be me, considering that I'm seventeen and not married.

[havok579257]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1582585' date='Jun 25 2008, 01:34 AM']I'd just like to put my two cents in as someone who first practiced NFP in order to become pregnant. It worked well, but after more than one miscarriage, and almost dying with the last one, we now practice NFP to prevent conception. We were very open to life, but to continue as we were would have led to more dead children, and maybe my husband as a widower. It's not a simple philosophical discussion for me.

To say that people who don't have sex is illicit contraception is kind of weird to me. Does that mean every engaged couple who wait until married to have sex are committing a sin by using NFP contraception? There is a period of time after having a child that women aren't supposed to have sex, so if she is ovulating during that time does that mean she is committing a sin by following doctor's orders?[/quote]


Not having sex before marriage and NFP are to totally different things.

Sex before marriage is not just to avoid having a kid, its because it is sinful and a mortal sin in God's eyes.

NFP is only to be done between a married couple.


What I was trying to say is, if you refuse to have sex in marriage because you want to avoid getting pregnant, is that not similar to refusing sex to your partner for whatever reason? You may not be refusing your partner, but you are refusing God and his will. To me, NFP goes against us and how God made us.

Meaning God calls us to have sex in marriage. It is the greatest act of love one can express to their spouse in marriage. It is completly giving one's self to their partner. If you refuse to have sex for the sole purpose of not having children are we not refusing to do something God gave us and told us to do. If we are refusing sex are we not refusing to be unnative in the best way God gave us? Now this is not about people unable to have sex, this is about those who refuse to on the SOLE purpose of not having children.

God gave us three reasons for sex inside a marriage:

To Glorify him
To unite with one's spouse
To produce life

How is it ok if we take one of these away. It would not be ok if we were not glorifying God in our bed in marriage. It would not be ok if our sexual love for each other did not bring us closer together but brought us further apart. So why then is it ok if our sex does not produce life, not because of something God does, but because of what we do?


I just don't understand how NFP is not doing the whole "having sex without kids thing". I understand it is an approved method by the Catholic church and because its approved its different than the pill or condoms or what not but the intent is still the same. We are denying one of God's commandments for our marriage. Ok maybe not denying, but definatly trying to work our way around. We are trying to work our way around his law of to produce life by saying we are open to it, but we are only going to have sex on days that will more than likely NOT produce a child and refuse to have sex on any day that getting pregnant could happen more likely.

[puellapaschalis]

Instead of the NFP/contraception discussion, I was taught the natural/artificial contraception discussion. The semantic shift helped me (or at least I thought it did - there are problems with the word "contraception" itself).

Or maybe we could talk about birth regulation, artificial and natural. Artificial being (artificial) contraception and natural being abstinence.

If I have things right then the Church says there is nothing wrong with spacing the births of your children - you can, for example, look at your circumstances and together decide that this perhaps isn't the best time - but abstinence during the fertile period does at least allow for the possibility that God reckons you could do it anyway.

I think...I thought I understood the NFP approach but the thread has raised some questions.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582058' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:42 AM']MissScripture has already done a fine job of explaining why NFP is not the same as condoms or the pill, so I want to touch on the abstinence thing.

Abstaining from having sex during fertile periods is a sacrifice and not at all like someone who wants the physical benefits of sex (pleasure, orgasm) but doesn't want to become pregnant. The latter is self-centered, and it is a sexual act that is not open to life.[/quote]
Very true. Abstaining is definitely a sacrifice, but it is done because it would not be good for me to get pregnant again yet.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582080' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:46 AM']But isn't the intent of NFP to avoid creating new life?

Are the couple not holding something back because they are choosing at certain times to abstain from sex to try and avoid creating life.

I thought the entire point of using condoms, the pill, what not was to avoid getting pregnant. How is NFP any different. Sure, your not using an actual device but your intent is still to not produce life. Your specifically avoiding sex on certain days to avoid creating life.

Other than not using an actual material thing(condom, pills) is not the intent the same, avoid creating life?[/quote]
No, the point of NFP is to work with my natural cycle to postpone ([b]not [/b]prevent or avoid) conception. Or to use NFP to see when I'm fertile and thus achieve conception easier.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582269' date='Jun 25 2008, 03:00 AM']That analogy is not even the same. In one instance your killing her, in the other you not doing anything. Your letting things happen and not intervening at all.

With NFP you are activily doing something.[/quote]
With NFP I am not actively changing my cycle or thwarting my fertility, as the pill or condoms do. I am merely observing what is going on with my cycle and then my husband and I make a decision regarding whether we can afford to get pregnant at this point. If not, we abstain. If so, we go for it. After all, NFP is not only for postponing conception, but also for achieving conception (very effective in this way, as well).

And of course one is not obligated to use NFP. You don't have to learn anything about your wife's cycle, nor does she have to learn about it, and you can just go from there. But for those who legitimately cannot afford to get pregnant, due to financial, health, or other reasons, NFP offers a choice. Or for those who are having trouble conceiving, NFP offers a natural way to pinpoint the timeframe when conception is most likely so that the couple can take advantage of that (and Billings, and I'm sure other methods too, has a high success rate of conception among couples deemed sub-fertile, actually).

[XIX]

Y'all need to stop rehashing arguments that have been responded to 8500 times.

[Greyhawk]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582609' date='Jun 25 2008, 01:12 AM']God gave us three reasons for sex inside a marriage:

To Glorify him
To unite with one's spouse
To produce life

How is it ok if we take one of these away. It would not be ok if we were not glorifying God in our bed in marriage. It would not be ok if our sexual love for each other did not bring us closer together but brought us further apart. So why then is it ok if our sex does not produce life, not because of something God does, but because of what we do?[/quote]

The way I'm reading what you said (and I may be wrong), you make it sound as if producing life (either as an intention or actually conceiving) is a necessary (precondition if you meant intent or consequence by actually result) component of the marital act, and absence of intent to conceive or any failed attempt to conceive should be considered a sin. While I don't have any statistics to back me up, I don't think that all "unregulated" marital acts (meaning people aren't using NFP, contraceptives, etc.) who perform the marital embrace properly with the intent of producing life are always 100% successful. Thus, conception is mainly up to God's will as the primary Creator. So producing life within the marital act always remains a [i]possibility[/i] (subject to God's providence), and not an absolute consequence.

Now, if we introduce society's unnatural contraceptives (the ones forbidden by the Church), the typical intent is to [i]completely[/i] abolish the possibility of a child (even if it's not actually 100% effective). At this point, we consciously choose to push God out of the picture by taking authority over our bodies and the marital act by subjecting ourselves to man-made drugs or devices. By voluntarily choosing to alter and violate our bodies' natural rhythms or performance, we are basically saying "we are the masters of our body (not God) and we decide when to have a child," thereby denying God's claim over us as beings and usurping God's role in the act as the primary giver of life. So far with unnatural contraceptives, you abolished two of your stated reasons for sex within marriage (glorifying/honoring God and rejection of producing life). I would also argue that these unnatural contraceptives negate the unitive aspect too because you implicitly say "I give my total being to you, except I need this pill, or I need this condom, or I needed to be sterilized first." There's always an exception with the unnatural contraceptives, and never a total giving of the person's being and body in tact, as is.

On the other hand, NFP works within the natural realm of the human body's mechanism, and always implicitly leaves open the possibility to conceive by operating within God's created (and recognized) biological laws (by leaving conception primarily in God's hands). You glorify God by submitting and working [i]within[/i] His natural laws, and always remain open to the possibility of life (because they're His laws), thereby acknowledging His supreme role in the situation as primary Creator. The unitive aspect is plain to see because nothing has been introduced to inhibit a couple's union, since whenever couples choose to embrace, the persons give themselves to each other as is. People can still conceive within NFP, and although I haven't personally practiced it I'm sure they must know that children may result from any marital act at any point in the cycle. Thus, we have fulfilled your third requirement for possibility "to produce life" (subject to God's providence), and I think NFP can qualify as fulfilling the requirements of the sexual act.

As to the actual reasons to exercise and when to employ the practice of NFP, I will defer to someone else because I could not articulate nor am I well educated in this respect.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Greyhawk' post='1582778' date='Jun 25 2008, 10:21 AM']The way I'm reading what you said (and I may be wrong), you make it sound as if producing life (either as an intention or actually conceiving) is a necessary (precondition if you meant intent or consequence by actually result) component of the marital act, and absence of intent to conceive or any failed attempt to conceive should be considered a sin. While I don't have any statistics to back me up, I don't think that all "unregulated" marital acts (meaning people aren't using NFP, contraceptives, etc.) who perform the marital embrace properly with the intent of producing life are always 100% successful. Thus, conception is mainly up to God's will as the primary Creator. So producing life within the marital act always remains a [i]possibility[/i] (subject to God's providence), and not an absolute consequence.

Now, if we introduce society's unnatural contraceptives (the ones forbidden by the Church), the typical intent is to [i]completely[/i] abolish the possibility of a child (even if it's not actually 100% effective). At this point, we consciously choose to push God out of the picture by taking authority over our bodies and the marital act by subjecting ourselves to man-made drugs or devices. By voluntarily choosing to alter and violate our bodies' natural rhythms or performance, we are basically saying "we are the masters of our body (not God) and we decide when to have a child," thereby denying God's claim over us as beings and usurping God's role in the act as the primary giver of life. So far with unnatural contraceptives, you abolished two of your stated reasons for sex within marriage (glorifying/honoring God and rejection of producing life). I would also argue that these unnatural contraceptives negate the unitive aspect too because you implicitly say "I give my total being to you, except I need this pill, or I need this condom, or I needed to be sterilized first." There's always an exception with the unnatural contraceptives, and never a total giving of the person's being and body in tact, as is.

On the other hand, NFP works within the natural realm of the human body's mechanism, and always implicitly leaves open the possibility to conceive by operating within God's created (and recognized) biological laws (by leaving conception primarily in God's hands). You glorify God by submitting and working [i]within[/i] His natural laws, and always remain open to the possibility of life (because they're His laws), thereby acknowledging His supreme role in the situation as primary Creator. The unitive aspect is plain to see because nothing has been introduced to inhibit a couple's union, since whenever couples choose to embrace, the persons give themselves to each other as is. People can still conceive within NFP, and although I haven't personally practiced it I'm sure they must know that children may result from any marital act at any point in the cycle. Thus, we have fulfilled your third requirement for possibility "to produce life" (subject to God's providence), and I think NFP can qualify as fulfilling the requirements of the sexual act.

As to the actual reasons to exercise and when to employ the practice of NFP, I will defer to someone else because I could not articulate nor am I well educated in this respect.[/quote]

I'm not saying that a child must be produced everytime, what I meant to say is that one should be open to me. Obviously people who support NFP have a different definition about what open to life means. To me, it means not doing anything to try and avoid pregnancy. To me trying to avoid pregnancy in anyway is going against God's will. I understand the church's stance on NFP and why it is ok and I understand the difference in something man made and something with in our own bodies. Still the although the action used in ok'ed by the church, I still don't see how the intent is any different. Your goal with NFP is at the time avoiding pregnancy. Your purposly trying to not be open to life at the time. To me, its like your trying to avoid something God mandated for sex with in a marriage. Its like your trying to have your sex and no babies.

I'm not down on anyone who uses it, I just feel like a poster previously said, that the church threw this in only recently to keep everyone happy.

Also and maybe I am wrong on this, but from what little I read about NFP/Catholic church is that the only time it can be used is in grave instances. Although the way people talk about it and some of the material I have read(albiet not much) on it imply that people use it for spacing children. If someone is in financial hardship at the moment, or if one of the spouses are ill due to some sickness then that is one thing, but the stuff I read seem to indicate people use it when they just feel like spacing children. Which to me sounds like the same intent of using man made devices.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582859' date='Jun 25 2008, 04:35 PM']Also and maybe I am wrong on this, but from what little I read about NFP/Catholic church is that the only time it can be used is in grave instances. Although the way people talk about it and some of the material I have read(albiet not much) on it imply that people use it for spacing children. If someone is in financial hardship at the moment, or if one of the spouses are ill due to some sickness then that is one thing, but the stuff I read seem to indicate people use it when they just feel like spacing children. Which to me sounds like the same intent of using man made devices.[/quote]
As others have said, it is possible for some to use NFP with a contraceptive mindset, and that is wrong. We are to have just reasons for using NFP to postpone pregnancy (no dilemma if using it to achieve pregnancy, obviously). These circumstances may vary from couple to couple, though, and it is something they should discern together, perhaps with the help of their priest.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1582872' date='Jun 25 2008, 11:45 AM']As others have said, it is possible for some to use NFP with a contraceptive mindset, and that is wrong. We are to have just reasons for using NFP to postpone pregnancy (no dilemma if using it to achieve pregnancy, obviously). These circumstances may vary from couple to couple, though, and it is something they should discern together, perhaps with the help of their priest.[/quote]


Am I right inunderstanding what your saying.

That using NFP as a reason to just delay or postpone pregnancy is not right in the church's eyes, but is only ok under grave circumstances? I can completly understand the church's stance if it is only put in place for GRAVE matters. From what I understood/thought, it was just for couples who wanted to space children.

[StColette]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582880' date='Jun 25 2008, 11:53 AM']That using NFP as a reason to just delay or postpone pregnancy is not right in the church's eyes, but is only ok under grave circumstances? I can completly understand the church's stance if it is only put in place for GRAVE matters. From what I understood/thought, it was just for couples who wanted to space children.[/quote]

NFP used in order to avoid pregnancy is to be done only if there are grave circumstances.

[StColette]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1582651' date='Jun 25 2008, 04:10 AM']After all, NFP is not only for postponing conception, but also for achieving conception (very effective in this way, as well).[/quote]

lol which explains my ever growing belly ROFL!

[prose]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582859' date='Jun 25 2008, 10:35 AM']I'm not down on anyone who uses it, I just feel like a poster previously said, that the church threw this in only recently to keep everyone happy.[/quote]

The Church does not make claims about morality based on "making people happy".

Anyways, I feel like what Janet Smith stated in my last post is the most logical description of why NFP is a valid way to space or postpone pregnancies.

I would also like to point out that it is no one's place to judge from externals what a "serious" reason is for any couple. Some people look like they have every reason to keep having children when in fact there are more factors going on than they care to share with people. Remember to keep conversations like this on a gentle, pastoral level, as you may be insulting or hurting people without even knowing it.

[StColette]

[quote name='prose' post='1582899' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:10 PM']The Church does not make claims about morality based on "making people happy".

Anyways, I feel like what Janet Smith stated in my last post is the most logical description of why NFP is a valid way to space or postpone pregnancies.

I would also like to point out that it is no one's place to judge from externals what a "serious" reason is for any couple. Some people look like they have every reason to keep having children when in fact there are more factors going on than they care to share with people. Remember to keep conversations like this on a gentle, pastoral level, as you may be insulting or hurting people without even knowing it.[/quote]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582880' date='Jun 25 2008, 04:53 PM']Am I right inunderstanding what your saying.

That using NFP as a reason to just delay or postpone pregnancy is not right in the church's eyes, but is only ok under grave circumstances? I can completly understand the church's stance if it is only put in place for GRAVE matters. From what I understood/thought, it was just for couples who wanted to space children.[/quote]
I think you're reading me correctly. For example, if my husband and I just didn't want to have another child yet, but had no good reason to wait, we would not be justified in using NFP to space them. However, if we truly cannot have another child yet (due to financial/health/other grave reasons), then we are justified in using NFP to postpone until we can have another child. Then we can use NFP to achieve pregnancy. Now, the reasons are going to be slightly different per couple, but that gives you an idea.