www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural contraception 'effective'

I feel this is just one piece that proves to me that Holy Mother Church is correct. I hope others will read this:
Natural contraception 'effective' [news.bbc.co.uk]

Ray, that NFP is just as effective as the pill proves...? I'm not sure that it proves anything other than the fact that NFP is just as effective at preventing conception as the pill is. Of course, this may mean that using NFP is no more intrinsically open to life than using the pill or a condom. In fact, from a statistical point of view, NFP is less open to life than a condom since condoms are thought to have a 10% failure rate. At least, someone could make this argument.

Joe

Exactly.

I know some traditional Roman Catholics who oppose Natural Family Planning as much as they do the use of condoms or any other contraceptive. They totally leave the gift of children to God and trust in Him.

However, can NFP be used when couples have a borderline low thyroid condition that prevents them of maintaining a pregnancy or some other medical problem that necessitates the use of dangerous drugs? I think so.

I had that problem, and the doctors would not prescribe thyroid, so that I was faced with one miscarriage after another and I did suffer two. I was able to bear one son only because the doctor did allow me to use a minimal dose of thyroid 1/2 grain per day, but he tried to pull me off thyroid during the pregnancy and I almost lost my son.

After my birthgiving, I was immediately taken off thyroid, but strangely, after I reached menopause, with no signs of fertility, then the doctors allowed me once again to use natural thyroid. I still have a problem with cold hands, cold feets, and heart irregularities whenever I am taken off it. Just think what an unborn baby would feel inside me without the thyroid -- plain cold and unwelcome.

Well, if you are asking me, then not only can couples use NFP in the situation you describe (and many other situations) but they can use non-abortifacient "artificial" contraception as well. I don't believe that there is a real distinction between natural and artificial contraception. NFP is artificial.

Joe

When a woman's fertile cycle is understood, it would be unnatural to abstain from sex during her fertile times?

If that's the case and temporary abstinence is unnatural in marriage, then we must have sex all the time.

Terry

Terry,

It would be unnatural to make it the habit, or practice, of engaging in relations only during the infertile times since this thwarts the primary, natural purpose of sexual activity. That we can take advantage of the fertility cycle is something purely accidental and not something that can be shown to be intended by nature. NFP is art, not mere passive cooperation with nature.

Joe

Joe,

There are ways NFP can be used which would be mutually selfish and not allow us to "be fruitful and multiply". But there are also times where NFP is not selfish, such as when a miscarriage is likely.

Before a couple practices NFP, they have to have good reasons for delaying a pregnancy. When a woman gives birth and breast feeds her child, there is a natural infertile period which can last two years. If a couple does not have the opportunity to allow a woman's hormone production to maintain this infertility (if they're prescribed formula), it would be natural to practice NFP for some time in order to pace the births of their children.

NFP, as I learned it, should not be a permanent practice. It is, however, essentially different than condoms, spermicide, sponges, and other such non-hormonal contraceptives. The major difference between a couple which abstains in fertile times and another couple which uses condoms during fertile times is that there was no potentiality for procreation in the former act.

When there is a potentiality for procreation and we block sperm and eggs from meeting through our technology, our action is out of accordance with nature. When there is potentiality for procreation and a couple does not have sex, that inaction is neither in or out of accordance with nature. There is no potentiality in an inaction.

The only critique could be for the couple's motivations, but that is a subject which should be addressed to their priest.

Terry

I've never been a big fan of "better living through pharmaceuticals" when we are talking about normal, healthy people.

Terry,


You know, that's about the clearest "non-book" affirmation that I've ever heard on the subject!

If people had been taught that by the clergy in the 60's and 70's, I don't think half the problems the Catholic Church has been through in the last 40 years would have occurred.

Did you know and accept this before becoming a Catholic, or is it something you learned and accepted afterwards?

Best,
Michael

And why is it intrinsically wrong to attempt to block the procreative activity of a sexual act?

Joe

Well said, Joe. This is the issue in a nutshell.

I honestly cannot see any moral difference between preventing conception by abstinence and preventing conception by artificial means. In both cases, there is the will to prevent conception and actions to effect that choice. The one involves cold showers and jogging, and the other involves condoms and the pill, but the will and the result are the same in both. And I'm not talking about abortion; I'm talking about contraception.

-- John

For two reasons. First, the two do not become one--in their flesh or in their child. Second, because blocking the procreative act frustrates the natural end of the act. Think of the Romans who used a vomitorium to avoid the natural consequences of eating. Natural family planning respects nature rather than acts contrary to it. But if using natural family planning is troublesome, does anyone seriously think the Church Fathers would condone it? Solution -- have a big family and trust in God's providential mercy. It works!

And John, NFP isn't even complete abstinence. It is clever timing. It is using shrewdness to take advantage of something that is an accidental state in nature. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. But, neither is using some other non-abortifacient method.

Joe

Whoah there. There's nothing accidental about female fertility occurring in cycles!

Michael,

Before my conversion I was not in any situation where the issue would come up, and then the topic came up during instruction. I was confused about the ethics and asked the priest a very specific question addressing the qualms I had about NFP, and his answer approached the question from a direction I did not consider. I had one of those "ah hah" moments.

=)

Terry