Natural Family Planning

[dyermaker]

I recently discovered that the church allows Natural Family Planning (timing).

 

Can anyone explain the rationale behind allowing NFP (98% effective) but not condoms (95% effective) nor the pill (99% effective)?

 

The church states that the marital act must be open to procreation. Isn't delibirately having sex at a time where pregnancy is least likely to occur not open to procreation? And if not, since the condom has a chance of breaking, isn't using condoms thus somewhat conducive to life, since God could, of divine will, make the rubber weaken?

 

I'm not asking for people to agree with me that it makes little sense, rather for someone to explain the theology behind this.

[SoleMate]

Dyermaker - I'm with you on the God thing - but you are asking a bit much. Catholic theology is NOT fair or reasonable or just or in line with Christ's teachings or God's will - IMO. A loving couple who want to bring a child into the world to be cherished and nurtured may NOT use artificial insemination - even with the husband's own sperm that has been "power boosted"!! The power hierarchy of the Catholic Church is so far away from the pure and faithful hearts of their flock that it makes me want to weep. And it is not a rare aberration that twisted, frustrated, sick priests are preying sexually on the vulnerable members of their flock. It's structural.

 

When you guys gonna have a REVOLUTION? Our Lord overturned the tables of the moneychagers because they were so dirty. It's time, again. Overdue, in fact.

[dyermaker]

It's fine if you don't want to be a Catholic, I'm not asking a bit much, because I'm not trying to convert you.

 

Your opinions on my Church are irrelevant to the question I had asked.

[A Thought]

Dyer, I will not pretend to be an expert on the Catholic church.

 

 

My basic understanding of their stand point (rationale) is that birth control is a form of abortion. I think that they believe that life begins at conception (unless I am mistaken--feel free to tell me, if so.). Thus, when the sperm and the egg meet, a child has been conceived and life has been created. Now the birth control blocks the joined sperm/egg from implanting in the placental wall. One of the ways it does this is by keeping the lining along the wall relatively thin. If it blocks a conceived child from implanting in the placental wall, it has effectively killed that child. (Then falling under the "do not murder" etc.)

 

I am unsure of the argument against a condom?? However, with regard to the rubber weakening, God in His divine will could ultimately have a couple conceive while using any form of birth control--- be it condom, pill, withdrawel, NFP or anything else we think of at the moment.

 

 

It is hard to be unpopular. The reason I say this is that the Catholic church may teach that children are a blessing, however, is that what we see the general population living by and accepting as ''normal''???Children are not necessarily seen (in Today's society) as a blessing, but rather a part of the collection to having the good life...unless of course your dream does not involve children, in which case, do not feel you have to have them.

 

My guess, and it is only a best guess, is that the Catholic church felt that by responding with NFP they could appease those who did not wish to have children while maintaing those who did wish to have some. Also, it's not a man-made contraption. NFP means that no outside measures are taken, except of course checking temperatures etc. So, there is no outside involvement in the inner workings of the body.

 

These are just a rough idea of where they might be regarding your questions.

I am personally a reformed protestant, so my worldview differs from the Catholic perspective and I am not as current on their arguments as I might be. This is just what I have picked up from Catholics that I know or have come in contact with.

 

Also, I have very specific views on this and do not wish to respond with information that does not answer your questions.

 

Hope this helps as you flesh this out.

~AT

[brashgal]

If there is no marital act, there is no chance of procreation. If you are using other forms of contraception you are impeding procreation. Subtle difference.

What does the church say about marital sex? Anything like it is a right or should never be denied, etc. Denial or sacrifice is an important aspect of many religions (some fast, some give things up for Lent), I can see them working abstinence into the plan.

 

Just random thoughts, I have no clue what the Catholics were thinking.

[dyermaker]

The Humanae vitae's main message is that sex is both unititive and procreative, but the more I think about it, the more those seem like opposites unless one emphatically wants children at the time.

 

For sex to be unititive, obviously both people would have to desire it, and NFP restricts the couple to when the woman is least likely to want it, chemically. I'm just talking out of my ass, I'm neither a scientist nor a theologist, I just have trouble with things I don't understand that I know someone else does.

 

As for abstinence being most effective, tell that to Mary

[befuddled11]

Originally posted by A Thought

 

 

Thus, when the sperm and the egg meet, a child has been conceived and life has been created. Now the birth control blocks the joined sperm/egg from implanting in the placental wall. One of the ways it does this is by keeping the lining along the wall relatively thin. If it blocks a conceived child from implanting in the placental wall, it has effectively killed that child. (Then falling under the "do not murder" etc.)

 

However, birth control pills, at least most of them to my knowledge, work by preventing ovulation.....and by doing so, an egg is not released...so if there's no egg released, then there's nothing to join with the sperm..so therefore, no zygote, nothing conceived. The only form of oral contraception that I know of that works by preventing implantation are those that contain synthetic progesterone-ONLY......(like the Mini-pill, Micronor, etc).

 

Dyer: I have no idea in the world why natural family planning is good but a condom isn't. Makes no sense to me. I think the Catholic church (I was raised Catholic) needs to get with the program. I admire their stance on abortion, but on that note, what's wrong with the Pill? Is it better for Catholics to end up having an unplanned pregnancy and bringing a child into the world that may not be wanted?

 

As far as I'm concerned, short of abortion, the type of birth control a woman/couple uses, is between her and God and it's none of the church's business.....seeing how they're not going to be there to raise an unwanted child's life.

 

Don't even get me started on the Catholic church.

[God]

I remember when I asked St. Peter to head the Church I made no mention of sex or procreation. I thought I had taken good care of that issue already. Sometimes I just don't think far enough ahead. At any rate, I don't care what people do to keep from getting pregnant. I don't think that's something a church ought to be advising on either. It's up to each individual. And why in heaven's name would I have made such a thing as sex and then suggested people abstain from it unless they were trying to have a child. That would have truly been a mean trick to pull. Of course, once there's a pregnancy I'm with the church 100 percent.

 

I never thought that people would be so obsessed with sex. The porn flicks and websites, the plastic and rubber toys, even condoms - those things I had never given much thought to. I wish people would be as creative about making the world a better place as they are regarding making their sexual experiences more interesting.

 

Use whatever birth control method you want, I don't really care. If it's something really outlandish, I'll forgive you anyway. You can't lose.

 

And, by the way, I still enjoy Latin. Dominus Vobiscum!

[dyermaker]

God, your jovial Deism is a relief, but not neccesarily helpful.

[moimeme]

Dyer - you can Google with the best of us. Here's one link for you:

 

http://members.aol.com/revising/nfp.html

[dyermaker]

Been there, clicked that.

 

I guess I don't know what I'm after, I've yet to have seen my questions answered, this is likely the wrong place to go to see them answered.

[dyermaker]

"What does the language of sex say? In its natural form it says: 'I find you attractive. I trust you with my most intimate self. I would never hurt you. I desire to be with you completely and absolutely, even to have a child with you. By contrast, the language of contracepted ('protected') sex says: 'I desire to be one with you, but not fully. I want to engage in an act of great but momentary pleasure with you, but I am unwilling to accept responsibility for anything that may follow; I do not want my life that tightly bound with yours."

How narrow-minded is the hierarchy to assume that children is the only way for two lives to be fully invested in one-another. Moi, do you have any solace for me, being a catholic?

[moimeme]

Dyer, my thoughts on Catholicism are the same as those on all other religions; that despite the earnestness and well-meaning intent of the people who have attempted to guide the followers well, they have all been human and therefore subject to error. I had very good experiences with Catholicism throughout my life, but I don't credit the tenets of the church with that; rather it has been the people I have met who influenced, affected, and inspired me.

 

That such great people were attracted to the faith says something, I'm sure. That people, including the Pope, have done great things because of their faith in the Church does, also, but none of those things serve to prove that every tenet of this faith is necessarily correct.

 

My belief is that we are asked to love God and to love our fellow man. I learned that belief and how to carry it out through Catholicism and through some wonderful Catholics I've known so I remain Catholic but I don't follow every word and phrase of Catholicism to the letter.

[Darkangelism]

Maybe cause its not unatural like the pill or condoms.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Darkangelism

Maybe cause its not unatural like the pill or condoms.

It's very unnatural, it involves temparature readings, vaginal swabs, mathematical equations--it takes all of the intimacy out of something God intended to be special, taking it down to a chore for the woman (by making sex permissable when she's least likely to want it) and a treat for the man (by making it something he's limited to whenever fertility is not an obstacle)

 

I feel like a legalist.

[jenny]

i had some extra library time tonight, so i checked this out. well, that, and i can't actually turn down a research task. i can send you the article in full e-text if you'd like, but i will post the salient point to your question. i would be interested to know how you respond to it. it reiterates the point you have already made, and does not answer your concerns, but it's a legitimate start from a relatively legitimate source. i'll post more if i find anything else.

 

the full article is:

John Paul II and The Mystery of The Human Person , By: Dulles, Avery, America, 00027049, 2/2/2004, Vol. 190, Issue 3

 

3. Contraception. The question of natural law comes up concretely in the pope's writings on contraception. Following Pius XI and Pius XII, Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae argued primarily from natural law; contending that contraception is intrinsically evil because the generative faculties are intrinsically ordered toward the raising up of life (H\2 No. 13). But the present pope, in his various writings on the subject, says nothing about the intrinsic ordering of the faculties. He speaks of sexual union as a tangible expression of love between a man and a woman who generously and unreservedly give themselves to each other. Contraception, he maintains, is "a falsification of the inner meaning of conjugal love," since it turns sexuality into a means of hedonistic satisfaction (Familiaris Consortio, No. 32.4). Paul VI in Humanae Vitae had already spoken of conjugal love as a reciprocal personal gift of self and had warned that the practice of contraception could easily lead to the lowering of the partners into mere instruments of selfish enjoyment (HV Nos. 8, 17).

 

Some authors contend that if Paul VI had more consistently followed the personalist rather than the legalist approach, his condemnation of contraception would have been more warmly received. The question therefore arises: Does John Paul II intend to correct Paul VI by substituting a superior argument, or does he mean to leave intact all that Paul VI said about the ontological dimension of the moral law; adding only a further reflection on the subjective or psychological dimension? I suspect that he intends to support the tradition, not to supersede it. But he wants to induce people to be open to life from a motive of love, not just as a matter of submitting to law.

[dyermaker]

Contraception, he maintains, is "a falsification of the inner meaning of conjugal love," since it turns sexuality into a means of hedonistic satisfaction

Alright, but isn't family planning the exact same thing? As I understand hedonism, it's sexual pleasure without the burden of pregnancy. Isn't NFP equally hedonistic?

[jenny]

i don't pretend to fully understand the fine points here, but my understanding is that hedonism can be best defined as pleasure with no higher purpose - it's pleasure simply for pleasure's sake. NFP love-making, alternately, serves the higher purpose of a firmer, more loving, bond between spouse and spouse along with pleasure. a closer bond between two potential parents is ultimately good for a potential child, and brings all parties closer to g-d.

[dyermaker]

*smiles at your judaic g-d*

 

My question, additionally, is that isn't also possible for firm, loving, and holy lovemaking to exist without neccesarily giving children to those who don't see children (or at least not yet, or at least not tons of them) as a way to solidify such love?

[jenny]

that's an interesting point. quickly, batman, back to the online library.

 

i am guessing that they weigh the danger of hedonism against the possibility of accidental children; and accidental children are never assigned a negative value. i don't know, though; i'll read around some more.

[moimeme]

What puzzles me, Dyer, is why you are asking this of LSers who aren't even close to knowledgeable about Catholicism. If you really want to know, why not talk to your parish priest or call the diocese?

[jenny]

hmmm. here we go. do you read the national catholic reporter? i'm sure you've run into it in your own studies.

 

http://www.natcath.com/mainpage/archives.htm

 

under the search term "natural family planning" etc. you will find a plethora of educated viewpoints on the topic not available on this forum.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by moimeme

If you really want to know, why not talk to your parish priest or call the diocese?

I used to have a priest that would answer my questions, or research their answers, or help me conclude my own conclusions. He was an asset to my faith, and I was sad to move away from him. The priests we have now aren't so amiable or helpful, I'm usually greeted with a "Have faith, boy"--as if faith was an excuse for apathy.

 

also: jenny, thank you.

[quankanne]

Dyer, check with the NFP coordinator in your diocese for a better breakdown and understanding of what natural family planning is, I think that person will give you the best idea of what it's meant to be and what it's all about.

 

Jenny's post, where she says "NFP love-making, alternately, serves the higher purpose of a firmer, more loving, bond between spouse(s)" is the closest definition I've read of NFP on this board, based on interviews I've done with the NFP coordinator in our diocese.

 

The Church's idea of sex is that it is experienced under conditions that promote a strong sense of family (i.e., within marriage). Contraception -- whether artificial barrier methods like condoms, the Pill or whatever else is sold by your local drugstore -- go against the Catholic belief that couples be open to having children. Why? As explained to me, it takes away the mutual decision of the sex act as something unitative and bonding, and turns it into something less. As in "you really need to get on the pill since we're sexually active," or "did you remember to pick up a box of rubbers?" putting the onus of the sex act on ONE party; it's not something that's mutually decided or monitored the whole time by both parties.

 

NFP brings the responsibility of that relationship to both husband and wife, because even though Mrs. is monitoring her basal body temperature on a daily basis and checking vaginal mucus secretion, Mr. is in on the act, too (not sure what he checks, though!). It's a mutual decision for the couple to have sex during the "safe" period, allowing them the enjoyment of the act without having to commit just yet to parenthood because they've delayed that decision another month; inversely, it allows that same couple an opportunity to plan their family by letting them know when Mama is at her most fertile ...

 

With contraception, there are too many variables involved and you end up playing Russian roulette. How effective is the Pill if a woman forgets to take it on a regular basis? Is the rubber going to hold, or will it bust? Granted, the Pill might allow for a little bit of spontaneity, but at the expense of a woman being solely responsible for making sure she doesn't get pregnant? Can a man can be sure she's taking it? Because NFP asks that both parties are fully versed in how reproduction works and how they each play a role in it, it seems like a more fool-proof method in either delaying or achieving pregnancy, IMHO. Not only that, the only real investment is taking the time to know your body and your partner's body well enough to judge when to have sex, for whatever outcome. Contraceptives are just too dang expensive, compared to a thermometer and a chart!

[befuddled11]

I definitely appreciate your response here, it sheds more light on Dyer's question.

 

But what really gets me when reading it, is......this is all the Catholic church's "belief".....where does God enter into it? There's absolutely nothing in the Bible that supports NFP. It's a "system", if you will, created by the Catholic church. This in itself is what strikes me the wrong way. It's a set of beliefs and rules created by man (Catholics) from a long time ago, err however long NFP has been around. But does God endorse this? Is NFP something that's important to God? Does God care whether a couple uses condoms or oral contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancies? What's really most important, in the grand scheme of things......a couple mutually deciding when they want to bring a child into the world (using whatever form of birth control they choose/that works for them), or not? Do you really think God cares? Or do you think that maybe his greatest concern is that children, when they do enter the world, are brought up with love and security and a good value system?

 

As for the man being involved with the whole process of NFP, I don't see it. It's the woman who does the daily basal body temperature checking, checking of the cervical mucus, and charting of it all. Basically, it's HER body from which the data is collected.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a married couple should be able to express their love for each other (via sex) whenever they choose......have some spontaneity....not having to follow some unromantic process where you can't possibly have spontaneity, because "On days 10-17 of her cycle, no nookie."

 

No other Christian denomination, that I know of, teaches and promotes NFP. So what does that tell you? It tells me that it's merely something concocted by the Catholic church......that's really not in line with the teachings of Christ. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, hey, whatever floats a couples' boat.......but I'm sure that in strong catholic circles, of couples, couples who didn't use NFP would be looked down on, for not following the "ways of the Church" (notice: not "the way of God").

 

Personally, I think the church should keep their nose out of what form of birth control couples use. It's between them and God.