antonia's world: Using NFP

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Using NFP

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and contraception must be one of the absolutely worst understood areas of Catholic teaching in the entire world.

Basically no non-Catholics understand it, and the percentage of Catholics who understand it is probably single figures.

and the use of natural family planning (NFP) is possibly even more poorly understood.

I find it funny sometimes (in an odd way), how at one moment I am defending the scientific basis of NFP with non-religious doctors (even gynaecologists!!), trying to stress that, yes, it does work; no, it is not that difficult to learn; no, women don't need perfectly regular cycles to use it; no, it's not the same as the rhythm method.

and then I can be trying to convince contracepting-Catholics that there IS a huge moral difference between contraception and NFP, and that the Church does still teach that contraception is wrong and you really should be listening.

and then (for me the most surreal part), trying to convince orthodox Catholics who agree with the Church's teaching on sex and marriage, that the Church doesn't (and has never) asked & expected married couples to procreate with every act of intercourse throughout their married lives, the Church (with St. Paul) does actually teach that, while always being generous, couples may abstain from having children for a time if they deem it to be necessary. and that NFP isn't the work of the devil, or some liberal 1960s pseudo-contraceptive compromise!!

So anyway,

here is a fantastic article I recommend reading.

It isn't about the science of NFP....it isn't about the morals behind using NFP....

(info on both of those can be found here and here)

it's on what Humane Vitae's ACTUALLY teaches about spacing births, and when it is morally justifiable to.

artcle here - highly recomended.

thanks to RadicalCatholicMom
----------------

9 comments:

Sheila Kippley said...: At www.nfpandmore.org on the Home Page one can find "Not Just for Catholics" and on "Understanding Humanae Vitae" since others wanted this information. Also this website has a free short online manual with instruction on everything one would need to know about systematic NFP as well as the Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding. This manual has been well received and is approved by the USCCB as a Home Study program. One might also be interested in the "blog" on Home Page, upper right corner. Sheila Kippley; 5/18/2007 1:06 PM
DrMatthewDoyle said...: That article is obviously well written and researched, although appears to be clutching at straws at times.

You needn't see things in terms of extremes so much. My wife and I wish to be "generous" and "prudent" in "accepting numerous children" rather than consider "serious reasons" and "moral precepts" to prevent births. Since both these are options according to Humanae Vitae, I hope and pray that NFP advocates cease trying to ram their decision down my throat, using the rationale that our marriage is incomplete without the essential "marriage building" benefits of NFP.

Obviously the NFP method is better advocated for Catholics who feel compelled to contracept (or use IVF) for whatever reasons, in order to bring them in line with Church teaching. In my experience it is very difficult to convince non-Catholics about the evil of contraception without bringing them to the church first.; 5/18/2007 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: We live in a crazy world, don't we? Surreal.; 5/18/2007 2:19 PM
erin said...: Agreed! We started usin NFP before we became Catholic, which might have helped us understand the theology behind it a little better. It's true, though--when used correctly, NFP can be 99% effective in avoiding pregnancy, and there are many Catholics who take *too much* advantage of this, which is unfortunate.
*sigh* I could talk about this for hours. Anyway, thanks for the links.; 5/18/2007 2:20 PM
antonia said...: Hi Sheila,
nfpandmore.com was actually linked in my article above! It is a really great resource, I agree!!

Matt-- oops! sorry you are offended.
I certainly wasn't trying to "ram" anything down your throat!
and I certainly wasn't, in any way at all, suggesting that there was something deficient in NEVER postponing children by using NFP !!

Such a thought has never even entered my mind in my entire life!!

My only point is that sometimes some Catholics suggest that NFP usage is akin to contraception, and that *if* it is to be used, in should only be in some certain-death situation.

I find that stance dishonest and unfair, because it isn't what the Church actually teaches!

RCM & Erin, thanks for your comments!; 5/18/2007 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: But there must be very serious or grave reasons for postponing a pregnancy either temporarily or indefinitely. i agree nfp is oten used in a contraceptive way..ie no different from artificial contraception in which case the evident blessings & graces would be absent, in my view.
In my experience we used nfp entirely to conceive 12 souls...& used fertility awareness to achieve the best fertility possible.Thus i feel many so called infertile couples would benefit.

Sheila Kippley's Book The Art of Natural Family Planning (co-authored with her late husband John) is the absolute 'bible' for nfp.

The Catholic position is clearly expounded..& my husband & i have reached that wonderful stage of 'abstinence' used as a gift to our marriage for the sanctification of our family.

This is the only option agreed upon by our spiritual director when another pregnancy would prove life-threatening. Serious reasons may come to the Catholic couple as a cross to be borne & accepted. We would have loved more children, but God in his wisdom knows best.

Sorry to go all preachy...may bring it up one day on my blog!; 5/18/2007 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: It is an area that should be neglected not by couples who should study it but as a focus of debate which it has become with some people (witness the Hannity/Fr. Enterneuer clash). For some, it is used as a litmus test of whether those Catholics over there are "faithful". Interest on personal non investment type loans was used exactly that way for 1400 years and two saints, that I read of, denounced certain Catholic towns as being filled with this sin of usury. Now the issue is gone because we agreed belatedly in the 19th century with the concept Calvin had in 1545 that interest asked of the non destitute and non poor in such loans was moral if not exorbitant (our apologetics world has not yet read Calvin therein and claim that economies changed and then we wisely changed...how then did Calvin have it right in 1545)....(Aquinas basing himself on Aristotle had said it was against natural law).
This natural methods issue may be different than the usury issue and the Church may well be correct but until some Pope takes the trouble to do an infallible statement on this matter, there will be confusion. The 95% dissent rate is itself a non truth in that it is composed of two very different groups... a number known to God only are really simply disobeying which is mortal sin and another number known only to God are sincerely dissenting in conscience which Lumen Gentium 25's "religious submission" is susceptible of... after studying it and praying and seeking counsel but still thinking it an incorrect position as was the one on slavery from the Fathers til the 19th century and as was interest on all non investment loans as being sinful was for about the same time period.
Humanae Vitae was announced twice as non infallible at its press conference but some conservative writers (Grisez inter alia) then proceeded to claim that the issue is infallibly defined because of its long standing nature in the ordinary magisterium. But acceptance of slavery under the "Just title" of being born to a slave was accepted for 1400 years in the Church while the trade itself was denounced and native population slavery was denounced...yet religious orders had slaves into the 19th century due to the "just title" bit (see the catechism of Trent on line in the section on stealing and you will see stealing a man to enslave him and stealing another man's slave both denounced...meaning the trade is bad but some have slaves by just title...the just title idea was not overcome until the 19th century).
And concerning laon standing and always held positions, Pope John Paul II felt no compunction against campaigning against the death penalty which had been accepted in the Church since Romans 13:4 became canon until Pope Pius XII affirmed it in 1952 (early Fathers in the first 3 centuries prior to the canon opposed the death penalty). And John Paul opposed an issue actually held longer than all these issues in that it was clear in Scripture 5 times....husband headship...see Dignitatem Mulieris, sect.24, par.3&4 and and the Theology of the Body section 89.3-4 wherein John Paul takes the mutual "be subject to one another" of Ephesians as trumping all passages that speak only of wifely obedience (an idea denounced in Casti Cannubii in 1930 in section 74 online).
So the "long standing tradition" idea was actually opposed by John Paul regarding the death penalty and husband headship
(the latter by the way is not in the catechism). So why all the talk about "long standing" tradition when it comes to this issue. A Pope needs to declate infallibly in this area in the customary wording so that it can pass muster under canon 749-3... "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."; 5/18/2007 5:49 PM
erin said...: wow! Sheila Kippley just commented on your blog! :-) I just finished reading her Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood and LOVED it. Strongly recommended reading, friend. It made me love my fat little man more every time I picked it up.; 5/18/2007 6:28 PM
DP said...: I gave my doctor one of the Billings' Method books after a conversation that could be summarized as "no, NFP does not mean "rythm method"". Evangelize those doctors!; 5/19/2007 2:43 AM