Same when I hear comments that “NFP is evil” or “NFP is heresy” or “NFP is unScriptural because PAUL condemned it”. I find it strange that people do not have enough honesty with themselves that they are only pathetically pleading for an excuse for contraception. If pure-NFP is too much, stop the stupid dishonesty and use condoms in some Phase II’s, but be honest with yourself and the world. Paul gave advise to not abstain too long except for prayer to a community that was being divided by some promoting extreme ascetism. This was advise, not condemnation. And how long is too long? A week? Maybe for some kind, good-hearted Yahoo’s for whom ever touch has to be a bedroom call it is too long.

In the 1950′s and 1960′s people condemned the rhythm method for not being effective enough (I remember), now people say they are concerned about NFP being “too effective”. If you are going to be concerned about NFP being too effective such that you feel you are not open to life, then maybe want you really want is and NFP program only about 75% effective, like the old rhythm system. Of course, you will have to abstain less, which is what you really want. And that is OK, many people can be more traditional and get their 3-4 children within 15 years that way, by only abstaining about 4-5 days a cycle just before peak.

I am sorry if this offends some of you good people, but I have to call them as I see ‘um.

(I do not think contraception is the worst thing there is! I disagree with Calvin and Luther that is is worst than adultry or incense. But it definitely is like a slow poison, like creeping death. But because it is slow poison, a few drops scattered over a significant time period probably will not affect too much in this life.)

This topic needs to be better understood by the masses. It’s amazing how contraception has become such an integral part of our society so quickly. It is redefining our culture.

It’s hard for people to verbalize the distinction between the use of artificial contraception and the use of NFP. I have heard that debate but I think it is clear to an objective observer that there is a tremendous difference.

I have often discussed the appropriate use of NFP with people. I think the topic is well covered here and I am so glad to have read this conversation. I just wonder – I know that it can be sinful to avoid conception but can it ever be sinful to conceive a child in a valid marriage?

I think of this question in light of the psalm that says, “Children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy the man whose quiver is filled with them.”

That being said, I concur 110% with Pansy Moss who addresses the issue of our society and how we moms are all on our own without the cultural support that our formothers had. This, I think, is part of the result of the contraceptive culture that we live in.

Lena

This is the way I always felt about it-and agin, that is a personal feeling, not a theological epiphany I had. I always thought of NFP as the result of original sin-in a perfect world where there is not sin, or suffering, people would not have to postpone children. I hate to use the term “necessary evil” because technically, if it is evil it should not be practiced, no? But again, I know a lot of people who NFP is not a struggle, so it has not been an extra burden to them, so they would not call it an evil.

I think your wording about “if you have to contracept, NFP is the way to go” is basically why the Church calls for grave circumstances. I read years ago, Dr. Janet Smith calls these circumstances “good reasons” or something like that (like I said, in the beginning of my marriage, I followed so many debates on this issue because trying to find out what was right weighed heavily on my mind). I am not sure how much I buy that, but in the end I am responsible for my soul in this matter. But along time ago I stopped reading the theologians on this. In theory, the best way to decide a grave matter is with prayer, and if your lucky enough to have a diocese that it can found in, with good spiritual direction. Sometimes finding God’s answer is not that cryptic either. If your motives are not pure, God will know. If they are, God will know.

One of the differences between NFP though, in theory, is that you are really not closing yourself off from life. Even though people abstain during a fertile cycle, God can technically send a child at any point, and unlike with artificial means, you will be open to that life. Many NFP people I know tend to have one more child then they were planning because one month they sort of felt like “why are we abstaining again?” I also see a lot of NFP using people who pretty much use it like “Catholic birth control”, or so they appear to from their own words. I guess they seem to be reasons to me that seem silly to postpone a child, but perhaps I should not judge because there may be more to the story than what is obvious. So for a long time, after seeing examples of this, I kind of felt the way you did, that after 2 kids, most people felt it was enough.

With all that said, I really wish NFP did work better for us. I am tired. For two plus years I lived among the Amish. The Amish could have kids out the ears because they had a community structured with help. My neighbor, Sarah, stayed in bed for the first month doing nothing after childbirth. She said to me that if she were like me, without the community, she had no idea how she could have children. We no longer have these communities. Mothers are expected to just deal, and I think that is why many women stick their kids in daycare and go off to work.

Motherhood is very hard work, and it gets exponentially harder with each child. With the last couple, I started getting repeated bouts of mastitis (from exhaustion), post partum depression…Still I think for us another child is a better alternative in my marriage than abstaining for months and months at a time. It is like a strange circle, family life causes spouses to sort of be pulled apart (like having babies in the bed) if they are not making concerted efforts to keep their marriage together, and I think abstaining for months sort of counters that. Maybe I will feel differently after this baby is born.

Sorry so long, I just wanted to say “ikwym” to your last sentence.LOL

“I’m not a Catholic. I don’t care overly much about the teaching of the Catholic Church; I am concerned with the teachings of scripture, which says to go forth and multiply, and calls children blessings.”

You might find this article interesting.

“Couples who use natural family planning to have only one or two children allow ‘brief parentheses’ in a marriage ‘willingly made sterile,’ said a new document from the Pontifical Council for the Family.”

I cannot thank you enough for giving us those links. I feel even better about my decision now, because I know that my husband and I are both doing this for the right reasons. Our marriage and therefore our parenting is much better knowing that we can handle what we have, but would trust God to know better than us and accept whatever He thought best. We work together, have the same goal in mind, have the same acceptance if our goal is not God’s goal, and our sexual relationship, while being a part (and a very important part) of our marriage, does not define it.

MK

Contraception is not infallible. It works about the same amount of the time as NFP. Sites promoting NFP say that its effectiveness is about the same as the pill when used properly. You can argue that they are different, but not that NFP is any more open to life. NFP is every bit as much a statement of “I love you, but not your fertility” as contraception. It is every bit as much a rejection of the gifts of God.

John spoke of:
the hyper-pious notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church.

I’m not a Catholic. I don’t care overly much about the teaching of the Catholic Church; I am concerned with the teachings of scripture, which says to go forth and multiply, and calls children blessings.

The Catholic church, I believed, authorized the use of NFP in “grave” circumstances, not in “any and every circumstance,” so I think it is not hard to say that if a couple has “one of each,” a nice house, two or three nice cars, a good nest egg in the bank, and no serious genetic issues, and they are using NFP to avoid another child, something is wrong.

Unless one starts from the Biblical assumption that, in a normal, ideal family and circumstance, children would always be welcome, you cannot come to a Biblical conclusion on when it is okay not to welcome children. There’s no Biblical reason for child spacing or not conceiving as newlyweds. God invented child spacing; that’s why it takes ten months between babies and more than a year and a half if mothers breastfeed, which is obviously the intent of our design. Aside from likely and serious medical complications or a real inability to feed another mouth, there is no reason not to welcome a child. Financial concerns really shouldn’t be an issue in the US, Europe, or most developed nations; kids just don’t starve or go naked.

NFP is heresy. The Protestant heresy is that birth control is okay; the Catholic heresy is that abstinence is okay, despite the fact that Paul forbid it in 1Cor 7:5 except for the purpose of prayer. Both are manifestations of an anti-child mindset. But Christ commanded us to be childlike, to let children come to Him, and to do to children what we would like to do for Him. He said that to teach children the wrong way was worse than to be drowned at sea. If we are to multiply and welcome children, then why would NFP be acceptable so that they were not “too close in age”?

I’m not trying to belittle anyone, and I think that if one must practice contraception, NFP is the way to go. But I don’t think it is ideal.

An example of one such error is the hyper-pious notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child…
We are certainly to trust in God’s providence. But this important truth must be balanced with another important truth to avoid the error of “providentialism.” When the devil tempted Christ to jump from the Temple, he was correct to say that God would provide for him. The devil was even quoting Scripture! But Christ responded with another truth from Scripture: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” (Luke 4:12).

I would like to clarify my perspective. I did say I lean towards providentialism, but I also said I do not disagree with the Church’s teaching on NFP, and that I do not judge anyone who uses NFP.

The reasons I lean towards providentialism are more physical than philisophical/theological. It just doesn’t work that well with me. My last three children were conceived attempting to use NFP. I learned two methods, and it is just not easy to read with us, probably due to breastfeeding. It has become more of a frustration and a hinderance in my marriage than a Godsend.

I know I am not alone that NFP does not work well with everyone. And to be honest, the propaganda surrounding NFP, (for understandable reasons-to combat the misinformation in a contraceptive culture) is that it works so well, it brings marriages together, it is wonderful, and while that maybe true for some, it is not for a lot of people. I think many of the people who struggle with it are the ones that become hard core providentialists.

For years I have been reading opinions on this debate. There always seems to be strong arguments on one side or the other on this debate, with everyone quoting documents at each other, but no one in the middle truly expressing what has helped or been a burden in their own life experiences.

With that said, while I have read the Church allows for NFP, I have never read anywhere that says couples are required to use NFP, and I think it is wrong to look at a family, say they have too many kids and are irresponsible since the Church allows for NFP.

Anyway, if that is what you got out of my original post on providentialism, I apologise for the repition. If not, I hope this clarifies.

My contribution will come mostly in the form of references to three articles, each written by individuals far more knowledgeable in this area than I.

First, an article published in This Rock titled “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?” by Fr. Brian Harrison, OS.

As you might guess, the answer is “no,” and in the course of the article, Fr. Harrison offers an historical overview of key developments in the Church’s teachings on contraception, natural child spacing, and the like.

Second, another article from This Rock, this one by Christopher West, entitled “God, Sex, and Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood”.

Here’s an excerpt (note especially the quotation from the future Pope John Paul II, of happy memory):

So what constitutes a “serious reason” for avoiding a child? Here’s where the discussion typically gets heated. Correct thinking on the issue of responsible parenthood, like all issues, is a matter of maintaining important distinctions and carefully balancing various truths. Failure to do so leads to errors on both extremes.

An example of one such error is the hyper-pious notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church. In some cases, “increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty” (Karol Wojtyla [John Paul II], Love and Responsibility, Ignatius Press, 243). Therefore, avoiding children “in certain circumstances may be permissible or even obligatory” (Karol Wojtyla, Person & Community: Selected Essays, Peter Lang Publishing, p. 293).

We are certainly to trust in God’s providence. But this important truth must be balanced with another important truth to avoid the error of “providentialism.” When the devil tempted Christ to jump from the Temple, he was correct to say that God would provide for him. The devil was even quoting Scripture! But Christ responded with another truth from Scripture: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” (Luke 4:12).

A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple “who prudently and generously decide to have a large family” (HV 10), are practicing responsible parenthood.

Third, for those who are interested in a lengthier, more scholarly treatment of the issue, check out Dr. Janet Smith’s “Moral Use of Natural Family Planning” [PDF]

A complete list of Dr. Smith’s articles (most of which are available online) is here.

“What we do know is that the aforementioned have the potential to act as abortifacients. Their manufacturers tell us as much (although they don’t use the word ‘abortifacient’, of course).”

I think that’s more a matter of covering themselves than reporting the results of scientific studies. Thus far, the pharmacological inserts are the only places I’ve seen any mention of implantation being affected.

Funky Dung,

You make a few more important points here, but you make a few mistakes in the process.

First, you’re justified to criticize the tendency among some pro-lifers to speak of the Pill, certain other forms of contraception, and the morning-after pill as exclusively abortifacients.

However, you’re mistaken when you suggest that it is incorrect to speak of the Pill, certain other forms of contraception, and the morning-after pill as if they never can act as abortifacients.

What we do know is that the aforementioned have the potential to act as abortifacients. Their manufacturers tell us as much (although they don’t use the word “abortifacient”, of course).

Right now, I’m looking at the pharmacological insert that’s included in a case of Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo Tablets (norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol), which says the following:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

“What I was referring to was, as I am sure that some people know, the decision of the American Medical Association to change the definition of “conception” to be implantation rather than fertilization. This was done mainly so that birth control pills (and now other hormonal treatments) could be called contraceptives.”

Even if that’s the case, not all contraceptive pills are created equal. There is no evidence that the Pill, or its high-dose cousin Plan B, negatively affects implantation. Studies show only thickening of cervical mucus and prevention of ovulation. Neither has been demonstrated to be abortifacient. Mifepristone, on the other hand, most definitely is abortifacient. If we pro-lifers keep spreading the myth that the Pill and Plan B are abortifacient, people will continue to regard us as “a gaggle of slack-jawed, unsophisticated, anti-scientific bumpkins”.

Don’t have a source you’ll find acceptable, Lauren, so you’ll have to do your own digging.

You might want to note that the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conception) still does not define it that way.

It is chilling and angering to come across serious-looking sites which proclaim, Those Christians don’t know what they are talking about. The medical community says that conception takes place at implantation, not fertilization… That’s my summary, but they do take the attitude that those who follow the older definition–the real one, that the dictionaries use–are backwards and not “with it.”

This, Lauren, is a conspiracy. Until I found this out, I didn’t really believe in conspiracies, but there it is.

“Actually, I do think NFP is immoral (when used to avoid conception), but not for such speicious and unscientific reasons as Mr. Bovens purports…NFP still takes control out of God’s hands. It still sets us up to make our own decisions about when to begin our children’s lives. It still implies a fear of fertility–I will make love to you, but only when nothing will come of it.”

You might be interested href=”http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2211″>the series of posts I’m writing that discuss these kinds of issues. I hope you join the conversation.

Why do you put her name in quotes like that? Are you trying to illustrate that even though she claims to be Christian she is not? And you know this because you follow her around in real life and you see her sneakily ducking into Bhuddist Temples when on the internet she claims to be a follower of the teachings of Christ? Or is it merely a jab because she has a differing perspective.

…If you say a ton of grea tthings, they will find one sentence that offends them and doesnt have to do with the core of what you’re saying and will accuse you of being mean…

So “what the hell are you talking about young “christian” woman ” is a “great” statement, and to find something offensive in it is just a matter of grasping at a no argument in a “great” statement and is a pro-lifer “being mean”. Unless of course simply having a different opinion than you is a self-righteous, right wing, gun toting, racist Christian way of being condescending and mean.

Look, I am not the moderator here, but I think as a human being I have a right to say knock it off. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure others would love to exchange ideas with you and hear your differing thoughts if they weren’t veiled in such nasty sentiments.

You don’t agree that abc is a conspiracy, and you would like further explanation on how someone could come to that conclusion, a better way to word the question would be :
“YCW,
What do you mean medical associations changing biological definitions? I’m not sure I buy that, but I would like a clarification.”

Instead of:what the hell are you talking about young “christian” woman

People would be more inclined to listen instead of getting annoyed, but I think you like annoying people because then you can complain about how horrible those Christians are. It is hard to hear “great” things when they are littered with cursing, telling people their children should not have been born, or wishing deadly diseases on them. I have yet to hear Lucy prove her point using one of those tactics.

You’re home. Next time you’re going to be late call. I worry.

MK