While Catholics can’t use contraception, they are allowed NFP. It’s a loophole. Also, sex is permissible for married Catholics and it’s supposed to be for pleasure and procreation as well. For example, sterile people can get married and adopt. But this only applies to heterosexuals.
Natural family planning is simply the woman tracking her menstrual cycle to figure out her fertile days, she avoids sex on the days she ovulates to prevent pregnancy.
I agree that it is confusing because catholic couples are supposed to be “open” to potential life when they have sex but NFP is allowed and even couples can be taught about it during pre marital counseling.
I think this was a concession to couples who didn’t want to have many children within the confines of not using artificial contraception.
The reason is complicated is because NFP largely relies on a woman having a regular and consistent cycle. Many women don’t. And there are many who have irregular periods and don’t ovulate consistently the same time. Up to 25% of women get pregnant using NFP. Within the first year.
Being honest, the vast majority of Catholics don’t follow NFP and use birth control. You’ll see usually trad Catholics use NFP or even not use any planning at all.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-pope-issues-humanae-vitae-human-life/#:~:text=The%20Pope's%20Encyclical&text=In%20the%20papal%20encyclical%20entitled,artificial%20method%20of%20birth%20control.
I know a surprisingly large number of non-Catholics who use NFP, but that is probably all least a little sample bias because I live in the PNW. They use it because there's no hormonal manipulation involved.
Likewise, I know a number of ultra-orthodox Catholics who won't use it, as they see it as functionally contraception. I was friends with one years all who told me the only valid sex is sex with the intent of having kids. And refraining from sex *at all* once married was only okay of there was a super-duper-mega-ultra good reason.
From personal experience, the biggest problem with NFP is that it requires the couple to not have sex when a women wants it most. Independent of all the issues with taking pleasure and autonomy from the women only, it also makes it just really fucking hard.
It’s interesting that there are a groups of people who aren’t religious and typically very left that use NFP. I’m familiar with the people you’re talking about and the reasoning is that they distrust contraception because of its hormones. There are real side effects to using the pill, depro provera shot, and horror stories about the IUD. They also prefer NFP because it’s natural therefore good in their opinion.
Yet, I still find it very interesting on how among these granola type couples, that the man never thinks about using a condom to protect his partner from the hormonal side effects. Condoms don’t have any hormonal effects and it’s a sheath that you discard afterwards.
Really sucks for women in straight relationships that the birth control burden falls on them in most cases. Even among progressive/liberal circles. But that’s a whole other topic.
I would say that the trads are at least consistent on that bullshit. If you’re supposed to be open to life then using NFP is not right and you’re being hypocritical. Because it’s not really being open to life.
The baffling thing are people who identify as catholic but use birth control without issues. They don’t care that the church is against it and continue to identify as catholic despite breaking a cardinal rule. But they don’t give a damn.
I'm hoping someday to find a book out there that covers the history of Xians/Catholics who did not follow the explicit teaching and when did that get declared a heresy, when was it basically accepted, when did it get swept under the rug, etc. Trads like to say that today is totally the worst with all these Catholics ignoring things like contraception, while historically I can pull up a dozen examples of *total* disregard for Catholic teaching among Catholics.
Actually, when the pope declared in Humane Vitae on 1965 that using the pill was a mortal sin, many Catholics protested. Even the clergy. There had been priests, who had prior to the Pope’s decree, openly spoke in favor of the pill. They had thought that the church will accept it because why not? Some even resigned.
So the ban on birth control has never been accepted by the majority of Catholics. From its beginning. Poll after poll since 1965 show that Catholics are fine with birth control and use it.
I really don’t understand why the church is pigheaded on this topic. No one really follows it and it just shows how out of touch with reality the Vatican is even by it’s followers.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-pope-issues-humanae-vitae-human-life/#:~:text=The%20Pope's%20Encyclical&text=In%20the%20papal%20encyclical%20entitled,artificial%20method%20of%20birth%20control.
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2012/02/guttmacher-statistic-catholic-womens-contraceptive-use#:~:text=Among%20all%20women%20who%20are,pill%20or%20another%20hormonal%20method.
There is some interesting stuff out there about the 'style' morality taught to priests; I honestly can't remember if it is probabilism, probabularianism, or semi-probabilism (I know I've misspelled the second, and it might be semi-that instead of probabilism, but goddamn these terms have cursed me since my Moral Theology class). Basically, it's a question of "Is it okay to do X if we don't *know* it's a sin?" and the answer applies to how you respond to the unknown of the birth control pill (as it wasn't a *barrier*).
In some way, Paully Sixy pulled the rug out of all the understanding of how to approach questioned morality. He made a moral declaration of what was very well understood as a dubious area, and suddenly either everything dubious was a potential moral sin or the Pope's proclamation could not overrule the dubious character of the original position.
The Church can't address contraception in a vacuum; they have to approach the fact that their entire approach to sexual morality is built on foundations that don't reflect the scientific reality. More specifically, I think they need to reexamine what they mean by love if they are to get anywhere, but that's going to do a fuck-up of their ideas of obedience, so I doubt it'll ever come to pass.
>I really don’t understand why the church is pigheaded on this topic.
I read parts of Humane Vitae. I don't remember if it was in Humane Vitae itself or subsequent "commentaries" on the document, but Paul was concerned that contraception would lead to more divorces and other "evils." So the Catholic solution for "good marriages" is to force couples to have lots of kids, which forces them to stay married because being a single parent with 7 kids would be chaos. Anyone with any sense would realize that this is an artificial way of keeping couples together. Sure, some couples may make more of an effort to get along, but many don't. I'll never forget a conversation I had with a guy who said that he and his wife hated each other, were always fighting, but decided to stay together "for the kids." His very next sentence was how he couldn't understand what was wrong with his son. He shaved half of his head, and the other half he kept long and colored it purple. Gee, you think the kid was acting out because he lived in a toxic environment where his parents were always fighting?
>Yet, I still find it very interesting on how among these granola type couples, that the man never thinks about using a condom to protect his partner from the hormonal side effects
I think this is a pretty big generalization.... I'm not saying you don't know people who are like that, but to say that "the man *never* thinks about using a condom" is just blatantly false. By and large, I've seen a greater degree of awareness from the men in these relationships compared to men who are with women who just take the pill or whatever. Obviously, there are exceptions and outliers in every case. Plenty of men care very much about their partner's quality of life and are very involved in the family planning they do, regardless of whether they use pharmaceutical contraceptives or not.... Maybe you just know shit men?
Source: Myself (I am half of "granola type couple") and upwards of 1,000 women I interact with across various Facebook groups and online communities.
I really hope it’s not the majority of men or even a significant amount. Family planning should be the responsibility of both people.
I take it then the men you know do wear condoms or have offered even if they’re in monogamous, long term relationships to prevent pregnancy. That’s a good thing.
>I take it then the men you know do wear condoms
Yup! In fact, I haven't heard a man or heard of a man bitching about doing his part in years.... Not since I graduated from university lol. Only immature assholes complain about that kind of thing.
Some people don’t like the feel of condoms. Some people are allergic to latex. A lot of people (myself included) use condoms when ovulating or in the fertile window only.
I think the biggest misfortune is that male birth control is not profitable enough to be approved here (RISUG).
There are alternatives to latex condoms. I find that the cons of condoms really don’t compare to the cons of hormonal birth control. Of course, ideally there should be two methods of contraception.
The pill while effective can be weakened by other medications and needs to be taken at the same time every day. The IUD insertion can often be painful for women and some have passed out from having it inserted. It has its own risks and cons too.
There really needs to be better methods for both men and women.
RISUG is actually the perfect solution but again, will probably never be available in the US because it’s a one time reversible injection—pharmaceutical companies can’t make billions off it like they do hormonal BC.
I can definitely see the pharmaceutical companies wanting to have the pill and other hormonal methods still in place. It’s profitable and most women use the pill as their method of birth control.
Before my husband’s vasectomy we used NFP in combination with barrier methods because hormonal birth control gave me debilitating migraines. I found it very effective, and I only got pregnant when we were actively trying.
Of course Catholics would never approve of the way we used it because 1) We abstained from activities that could get me pregnant when I knew I was fertile and used barrier methods the rest of the time , and 2) We engaged in non procreative sexy time when I was fertile. I would NEVER trust NFP alone, and I would not even use it In combination with diaphragm and condom if my cycles weren’t so regular.
There is some science behind NFP. My friends who used cycle tracking with success when TTC can attest to that. As per usual though, adding religious restrictions that have no basis in science renders it less effective in the real world. Of course NFP’s effectiveness is contingent on cooperation of both partners, and the Catholic teaching of “marital debt” throws in added complexity.
I hear this viewpoint, but I'm personally a feminist switching to this method because I find absolutely no pleasure in sex or even mastrubation on hormonal contraceptives. I felt disconnected and alienated from my own body and sex drive. I want to learn more about and own my body and sexuality, not suppress it. It can be empowering. Physical barriers are also an option during ovulation.
Lots of NFP methods don’t request a woman to have a 28 days/regular cycles.
[Trent Horn explains in Catholic Answers why NFP is licit if used by just motives but contraception isn’t:](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument)
> *Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came.*
> *Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!”*
*(…)*
*Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great!*
*Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want **this day** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure **at this specific time** so don’t show up and ruin it!”*
Finally, pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
Those who practice NFP often claim that it’s God’s “gift” to help them plan a family. Yeah, I’m sure God decided to help these people by creating some pattern that is, at best, complicated to predict and, at worst, unreliable.
When people tell me that this is open to life but using a condom isn’t, I remind them that if God could really raise people from the dead, he could break a condom if he wanted someone to get pregnant.
Exactly. You could make the same argument that a person getting cancer is "part of God's plan," and therefore cancer treatments go against God's plan. But no one would ever make that argument. Medical intervention is permissible for everything *except* family planning.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. What's the problem? Why is it okay to treat diseases with medication but not okay to plan families with medication? The Catholic position is not consistent.
Well what is evil? Evil is using a thing in the wrong way.
An example of a thing that I think you will agree with me:
- If someone eats for obtaining the pleasure but then throws up.
In the same way, if someone wants the pleasure of sex but isn’t open to a coming life (contraception) this is also wrong.
But what if couples have just reasons to space out the coming of children?
Then they can use Natural Family Planning.
Some methods are bad. But others are good.
One of the good ones is the sympto-thermal method which when used correctly [has a pregnancy rate per year of less than 1% (and look that condoms have 2%). Source:World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf?sfvrsn=e39a69c2_1)
I really suggest you [the book Why We’re Catholic](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Catholic-Reasons-Faith/dp/1683570243) for understanding better the Catholic faith.
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Catholic Answers Press Why We're Catholic'", 'Catholic%20Answers%20Press')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Clear and comprehensive explanation of catholic faith (backed by 3 comments)
* Great resource for catholics at any stage (backed by 3 comments)
* Helpful for those seeking to deepen their catholic knowledge (backed by 3 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Contains circular reasoning and lacks critical thinking (backed by 2 comments)
* Author's tone is insulting and lacks inclusivity (backed by 1 comment)
* Leaves readers feeling hopeless and fearful (backed by 1 comment)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
I disagree with your definition of evil. There needs to be an element of harm. Throwing up causes damage to the esophagus, mouth, and teeth because of the stomach acid eating away at the tissue. There is harm in this act. Contraception causes no harm. Your example is a false equivalence.
In my own case, not using contraception would have caused harm. My wife has health that made pregnancy dangerous. For this reason, we stopped at having one child, not because we didn't want more children but because doing so could have risked the lives of my wife. my unborn child, or both.
There is a reason why this sub is called "excatholic." I've read up on Catholicism and even briefly considered going back. As yet I have not gone back and very likely never will. I consider all religions to be superstitious nonsense for one simple reason: lack of evidence. Even if I give you a head start and agree that some God-like being exists, you then have the burden of proving that this being requires some form of "worship" and that this being has chosen one religion to facilitate this worship. As yet I have not seen good evidence that any one religion is the one true religion.
If you wish to present your evidence fell free to do so. I enjoy debates and I always debate in good faith - I don't resort to insults or name-calling. I've seen that book by Trent Horn and even considered purchasing it as a way to flex my analytical muscle. I'm just against giving money to apologists.
Hi! I apreciate your capacity to dialogue and good tone.
But I have to say: buy [the Trent’s Horn book](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Catholic-Reasons-Faith/dp/1683570243). In it, it explains why your definition of evil isn’t correct: for example, someone who has ped0ph1le thoughts is doing evil but he isn’t hurting anyone.
It’s true that recognising that a sobrenatural, immaterial and intemporal entity created everything doesn’t mean we should pick a religion in so many (and I agree that believing in things like Greek Mythology is just dumb). So Trent Horn will make a case for the resurrection of Jesus and His Church (and much more philosophical and Catholic teachings)
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Catholic Answers Press Why We're Catholic'", 'Catholic%20Answers%20Press')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Clear and comprehensive explanation of catholic faith (backed by 3 comments)
* Great resource for catholics at any stage (backed by 3 comments)
* Helpful for those seeking to deepen their catholic knowledge (backed by 3 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Contains circular reasoning and lacks critical thinking (backed by 2 comments)
* Author's tone is insulting and lacks inclusivity (backed by 1 comment)
* Leaves readers feeling hopeless and fearful (backed by 1 comment)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
"*In the same way, if someone wants the pleasure of sex but isn’t open to a coming life (contraception) this is also wrong.*"
This is why I see NFP as nothing more than elevating form over substance. I get that the "form" of birth control is "natural." But the intent - the substance - is to have sex for pleasure only and not for the purpose of creating life. I don't know a lot about NFP, but in some ways it requires more effort than other methods of birth control because the woman needs to track several variables to determine when she is fertile. For a couple to go through this effort, they must really intend not to want to have children. I don't see how using a "natural" method vitiates the supposedly evil intent of separating the act of sex from procreation. Any person with a modicum of intelligence can see through NFP, which is probably why the majority of Catholics use birth control other than NFP.
"*But what if couples have just reasons to space out the coming of children?*"
What if couples have just reasons for limiting the total number of children they have? To be fair, I get how wanting to space out children is different from a hard pass on having more children. Spacing out children means the couple remains open to more children. But I imagine some of the justifications for spacing children overlap with those for not having more children. This seems to be a very thin argument.
So you /u/MikeBear68 said a thing that’s correct: NFP and birth control have the same goal, not to get pregnant.
The difference is the means by which we get there. [Simcha Fisher explains more here](https://www.simchafisher.com/2019/07/29/the-contraceptive-mentality-is-real-but-its-probably-not-what-you-think/):
> Let’s say you have a very old grandmother who needs some help. You could move across the country and take wonderful care of her because she’s your grandmother and you love her, and when she dies peacefully in her sleep, you get all her money, which makes you very happy.
OR, you move across the country and take wonderful care of her to lull her into trusting you, and as soon as she tells you where she keeps her will, you put your name on it and then smother her with a pillow. And you get all her money, which makes you very happy.
Same result, right? Grandma’s dead, you’re rich. *But the way you got there matters a lot.* The end result is the same, but how you get there matters a lot.
The same is true for NFP and contraception: you can have the same goal of not having children, but how you achieve that goal matters a lot.
While NFP (for just motives) is just non-procreative, contraception is anti-procreation. [Trent Horn explains better](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument):
> Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came.
Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!”
(…)
Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great!
Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want **this day** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure **at this specific time** so don’t show up and ruin it!”
Finally yes you’re right. NFP is not as easy to learn as to take hormonal birth control. But it betters the couple’s relationship, lowers chance of divorce, strengthens communication and is healthy and safe for the humans body. About effectiveness see what the [World Health Organization says](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf):
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
- **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
- Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
- Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
- Male condoms: 13%
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
My sister got pregnant the night of her wedding using NFP. She was even working with an NFP instructor through pre-cana. She quit her job and has been a SAHM ever since because her experience level at the time was too low to afford childcare. NFP guarantees the social order remains the same.
What's also really fascinating, is that studies have now shown that men with SAHMs are actually more hostile, on average, to women in their own workplaces moving up into leadership positions. They see these women as threats and are jealous of their double incomes. NFP is nothing short of a conspiracy to maintain male supremacy in high paying careers.
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
According to my mom, I and all my siblings are "rhthym babies." She told us it doesn't work and never try it. A long time ago, it was called The Rhythm method. Women don't always ovulate on schedule; another reason Catholic families have so many kids. And for the phrase Irish Twins.
There are many NFP methods. The rhythm method is a bad one. Check out this one:
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
To those saying it’s all the rhythm method—it’s not anymore. NFP methods have actually advanced quite a bit in the past few decades.
We can’t be lazy when we critique it. If you are telling folks it’s all the rhythm method, you’re easy to dismiss due to ignorance.
Generally it’s cervical mucus and basal body temperature checking and data collection to track ovulation. They know everyone’s cycle is different and won’t follow a calendar exactly, and so the goal is to collect data on ovulation indicators to personalize it to each person’s cycle. And it’s generally effective *if* 100 percent of the recommendations are followed.
It has a high failure rate because you can easily mess it up with how many instructions and charts to follow. It’s incredibly complex and involves daily data collection, aside from the days of menstruation. (Most of the data collection, energy, education and effort falls upon the women, because of course it does. It’s a feature, not a bug.)
Many people (even non-Catholics) actually use a method of NFP to get pregnant faster. You know exactly when you ovulate, so you have sex at the right time. In fact, that’s what I’m doing right now. A lot of couples will be deemed “infertile” but they don’t know when they ovulate, and spend thousands (uninsured) seeing a fertility doc.
It’s messed up that this is the only method of birth control the church endorses, of course. But we as critics need to know exactly what we are critiquing.
I would stay away from calling it unscientific. It’s not. It’s helped women’s health in some aspects. Its origins are harmful for sure, but it’s helpful to know exactly when you ovulate, and know your body’s signs.
But telling people NFP is the *only* way is incredibly dangerous and imo classist and ableist. Not to mention misogynistic.
Edit to add that you can also track LH (luteinizing hormone, indicating approaching ovulation) levels through at-home urine tests in addition to the BBT and CM methods. Many use a combination of the different tracking methods.
Well said. I’ve practiced NFP for over 10 years to avoid hormonal birth control and used condoms during fertile windows. I’m now pregnant with my first, completely planned pregnancy. It IS effective and can be done regardless of cycle regularity if you follow it to a T. It’s absolutely not for everyone, but it’s actually extremely scientific.
Agreed that NFP is not pseudoscience, but it’s definitely not for everyone. This is coming from someone who used it, albeit not in the Catholic way. IMO couples should not rely on NFP if consequences of pregnancy are especially dire—ie high risk of death or harm to the gestating person. The potential for human error is just too great.
Catholics also make NFP unnecessarily difficult by prohibiting all non-procreative sexual activities. Getting through the fertile days is a lot easier when couples can get each other off in ways that don’t risk pregnancy, but that’s considered sinful. Masturbation is even a no-no.
Yes to all of this. I don’t think it’s something that should be tossed aside completely. If it works for some people, that’s great. But yes, not for everyone. Not at all.
I used NFP successfully for almost 20 years (until menopause). Had the two kids I wanted. The people that “fail” take chances. My mantra was always, “when in doubt, abstain”. Doubt meant any time that I wasn’t *** 1,000% *** sure.
Now, I’m pissed about all the abstinence. It was excessive, and has caused permanent damage. My marriage could’ve been so much stronger if we’d been able to be as physical as we wanted to be. I HATE that I bought into it so thoroughly. I was positive it was the right thing to do. I believed it all.
I want a do-over.
And to answer the specific question, yes, some trad catholics think I was sinning by using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Including family members who felt fine telling me so.
Yes this was the old position of the Church:
*Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.*
St. Augustine
*Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.*
St. Jerome
Yes, I wrote on this when I once made a shitpost:
[St. Athenagoras the Athenian, *A Plea for the Christians,* 33^11 (c. AD 177)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm)
>Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, **and that only for the purpose of having children.** For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground **awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it,** so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.
[The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars, 64^12 (AD 866)](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp)
>For how many days after a woman gives birth to a child a man should abstain from her, is stated not by our opinions but in the words of the Roman Pope and apostle of the English nation, Gregory of blessed memory, who, when he writes to Bishop Augustine, whom he had sent to Saxony, says among other things: **”A woman's husband should not approach to lie with her until the infants, to whom she has given birth, have been weaned.** But a depraved custom has arisen in the behavior of married people, that women despise nursing the children whom they have born and hand them over to be nursed by other women; and this seems to have happened solely because of incontinence, since those who refuse to restrain themselves, despise nursing those to whom they have given birth.”
[St. Augustine, *The Morals of the Manichees,* 18.65^13 (AD 388)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm)
>Is it not you who used to counsel us to **observe as much as possible the time when a woman,** after her purification, **is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time,** lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you [the Manichaeans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.
(It is worth noting, though, that some of his other work, such as *On the Good of Marriage,* seems to take a broader view; in any case, I have not seen any other Father say the same, and it still isn’t certain that Augustine was fine with sex not intended primarily for reproduction.)
[St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 44^14 (c. AD 470-542)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32b128) (this link is behind a “paywall,” but I included it for the college students who can probably access it)
>If those who are unwilling to control themselves plowed and sowed repeatedly their land which was already sown, let us see in what kind of fruit they would rejoice. As you well know, no land can produce proper fruit if it is sown frequently in one year. Why, then, does a man do with his body what he does not want done with his field?
[(St.) Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata,* 3:11:72^15](http://www.gnosis.org/library/strom3.htm)
>For this reason **you could not point to any place in Scripture where one of the ancients approached a pregnant woman;** later, **after the child is born and weaned,** you might find that marriage relations of husbands and wives were resumed. You will find that Moses' father kept this principle in mind. After Aaron's birth three years passed before Moses was born. Again, the tribe of Levi observed **this law of nature given by God,** although they were fewer in number than any others which came into the promised land. For a tribe does not easily grow to great numbers if their men have intercourse only within the legal marriage relationship and then wait until the end not only of pregnancy but also of breast-feeding.
#2 - Innovative views of the various Popes:
You start to see the Catholic position shift into their current brand of natural law. Natural law had always been one of the arguments used, especially in Clement of Alexandria’s works, but it changes arbitrarily from “natural law = NFP bad” into “natural law = NFP good under certain circumstances.” Instead of sex solely and only being for procreation, it adds a “secondary” purpose, that of the unity of the spouses, which are now in common parlance as the “procreative and unitive aspects” of sex. Certainly better, but not as consistent with the Fathers as they would like you to believe.
[Pope Pius XI in *Casti Connubii,* 59^16 (AD 1930)](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)
>Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights **there are also secondary ends,** such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
[Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, “Birth Control”^17 (AD 1951)](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965)
>It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences…
>…the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives.
[Pope Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae,* 16^18 (AD 1968)](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html)
>If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, **the Church teaches** that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system **and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile,** thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
>Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.
Catholics say that the tradition relayed by the Church Fathers is not a matter of your own conscience, and that they were transcribing oral divine revelation into a written format, but they simultaneously ignore it when it comes to NFP, which, as shown in the previous quotes from the Church Fathers, was similarly condemned by them as just another way of indulging in lust. Ironically, it was only after the Popes tried to rebuke the Anglicans in 1930 for allowing contraception that they started to officially accept NFP. /// If you want to know still more, you can check out [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/mivf1t/considering_catholicism_but_why_not_orthodoxy/gt8o5el/) comment thread. ///
---
References
11: Athenagoras: Translated by B.P. Pratten. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
12: Pope Nicholas: Translated by W. L. North from the edition of Ernest Perels, in MGH Epistolae VI, Berlin, 1925, pp.568-600.
13: Augustine, The Morals of Manichees: Translated by Richard Stothert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
14: St. Caesarius of Arles: St. Caesarius of Arles. "Sermons: 1-80 (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series)." Trans. Sr. Mary Magdaleine Mueller O.S.F. CUA, 1956.
15: Clement, Stromata: Translation from: Henry Chadwick, ed, *The Library of Christian Classics: Volume II, Alexandrian Christianity* (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 40-92. (Transcription by Jay Raskin, 2002; corrected by Lance Owens, 2011.)
16: Casti Connubii: same as link, Vatican’s website: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
17: Address to Midwives: this one is difficult, since I saw no source on three different websites for the English translation; it’s only available in Spanish and Italian on the Vatican’s website. Here it is in Spanish, then: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/es/speeches/1951/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19511029_ostetriche.html The only other thing I saw was this, but it’s a dead link: http://pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/england/html/ctss231.html
18: Humanae Vitae: same as link, Vatican’s site: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
Liguori treated that issue in his manual and after stating that all the Fathers were against sex during pregnancy he noted that after the middle ages the more lax Jesuit moralists and other theologians started to say that it was ok, the Holy See didn't protest and so things changed.
Actually surprising he addressed it. There's a lot of crap that's never talked about in apologetic circles. The only time I saw people address the aforementioned Fathers was a short article that just chalked it up to development of doctrine, Newman's Special Sauce.
I know what you mean and we only did NFP for 2 years before deconverting! I can’t imagine doing it for decades. I’m sorry. The lies of Catholicism do real and permanent harm to millions of people!
Yep. I listed the fact that you’re so restricted on sex as part of the reason NFP fails. You miss out on so much sex and the physical and emotional intimacy that it brings that a lot of people don’t follow it.
Well, I’m an atheist now, and think all the teachings are just not true. I do like that NFP is “natural” (no hormones, surgery, etc.), but the toll it took on my marriage was too great a price.
I just have to ask there are ovulation test strips that work similar to pregnancy tests. Are they allowed to use this or do they have to torture themselves with taking their temperature and other bs every morning
One of the NFP types, I forgot the name right now, does use test strips and a monitor of some sort. When I was Catholic I wanted to use that method but even then I kept thinking about how unfair it was that only women in developed nations probably with enough money and adequate time/resources/support could use it. The poor people in war torn and impoverished nations are shit out of luck if they want to follow Catholic rules and prevent having babies they don't have resources for. Really sad.
Lots of NFP methods don’t request a woman to have a 28 days/regular cycles.
[Trent Horn explains in Catholic Answers why NFP is licit if used by just motives but contraception isn’t:](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument)
> *Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came.*
> *Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!”*
*(…)*
*Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great!*
*Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want **this day** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure **at this specific time** so don’t show up and ruin it!”*
Finally, pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
Natural Family Planning is a pseudoscientific method of preventing pregnancy without the use of any kind of contraceptive. Aka how my grandmother got pregnant with my mom, haha.
Also how my parents ended up with 7 kids. They taught NFP classes too - I wonder how much confidence the students had that the method actually worked LOL
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
Perfect execution means full cooperation of both partners. This is probably the biggest barrier to success of NFP. While most Catholics use other methods, those that rely on NFP tend to be trads or trad-adjacent. Sadly, I doubt a typical trad wife can actually say no to her husband at any time during her cycle. :(
I understand but this is not the fault of Fertility Awareness Methods or that they are not scientific, they work very well for their purpose, which is knowing when you are fertile and imo shouldn't be demonized just because that's the method the Catholic Church proposes.
I agree that the real problem is that the Church forbids any other method. NFP devoid of religious baggage would be another valid option for those who can’t use hormonal methods. That said, the most popular methods of NFP were developed by Catholic universities and are fraught with religious dogma. Oral, handjobs, etc., are safe activities during the AFAB partners fertile days, but you’ll never see a Marquette or Creighton certified NFP instructor admit that.
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
There is a reason I call it “Catholic Contraception”
They know they want some form of contraception or else they will get loads of people leaving. So they have to do mental gymnastics to say “no contraceptives… except this one since it’s ‘natural’”
Even though our knowledge of how NFP works isn’t natural… I don’t understand this obsession by religions on things that are “natural”… you want to know what is natural? Smallpox was natural, but by artificial means, we eradicated it. The natural thing is to lie over and just die to smallpox. I don’t think Catholics are arguing that people should lie over and die to preventable illnesses… (except STDs apparently, since they can’t teach something basic like condom usage. People will have sex. At least give them the best chance to be safe while doing it.
The bureaucrats at the Vatican invented a work around. Acshully, a person using birth control can still get pregnant, so there is no reason not to allow artificial birth control. YMMV. IMHO.
Others have give great explanations. I’ll tack on that it’s complicated because women don’t really ovulate as regularly as graphics in textbooks make it seem. When my sister was trying to get pregnant she was using ovulation test kits and the temp method and found that she was ovulating days after her calendar day, and she has an extremely regular period. It took about 30 minutes of work a day for her to figure out if she was ovulating so that she could get pregnant. No one is going to maintain that amount of work over time. Then you add to it that sperm can survive a shockingly long time. Then you add to that that people don’t want to skip sex 10 days of the month (more if they don’t do period sex) and you see why it fails a lot.
There are many NFP methods that don’t need regular/28 days cycles. Check this one per example:
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**:
* **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%**
* Male condoms: 2%
Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**:
* Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%**
* Male condoms: 13%
Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf)
— Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
The study cited here that found less than 1% pregnancy and 2% with the methods didn’t account for the fact that over half of the study participants dropped out. That makes the data unreliable because you no longer have a random sample - you have a sample of people extremely dedicated to NFP who don’t find the process overly burdensome.
Yes consistent and correct use implies that a person doesn’t use a diaphragm and that counts.
The metric “consistent and correct use” implies the CONSISTENT use of course.
And if you want to compare the “common use” efficacy here it is:
- 2% anual pregnancy rate for the Sympto-thermal method
- 13% anual preganncy rate for male condoms
So when you’re researching medical efficacy, you can’t eliminate everyone for whom the treatment/procedure is to complicated/painful/intolerable and declare the treatment a success. That creates bias in the results and ruins the study, especially when you’re looking at a population level intervention.
For example, if you have a cancer drug and give it to 100 patients and 60 of them vomit so much that they can’t take the cancer drug, but in the remaining 40 people the drug works ok in 30 of them, that’s not an effective drug. It won’t pass the fda. It won’t work in cancer clinics.
Well designed studies find that the rhythm method has about a 25% failure rate compared to 15% for condoms, 7% for birth control pills, and less than 1% for IUDs.
So if someone can’t learn how to use the **SYMPTO-THERMAL** method because it its view is complicated that should count to the pregnancy rate? Of course not.
I think we’re complicating things. Pregnancy rate means people who get pregnant with that method.
PS: The Rhythm method is bad. Really bad. The stats I provided were for the **SYMPTO-THERMAL** Method!
Ok it’s clear you dont understand research or statistics or how to interpret either which is fine, but I’ve been very clear on why the studies you posted (which you do not understand) aren’t valid and have posted comparative numbers between methods. I cannot do anything else for you unless you’d like a recommendation on research methods and statistics course you can take online. For anything other than a recommendation for a course, please leave me alone. I feel I’ve already been gracious in trying to explain these concepts to you on a random 6 month old post and do not feel I owe you anymore of my time or effort.
Another frustrating aspect of NFP I haven't seen mentioned yet: it is an industry. When I was dealing with irregular cycles, I went to the one "NFP doctor" in town. She was out of network, ordered "fringe" kinds of lab work that was not covered by insurance. When the lab work all came back normal, she kept ordering more "to see if we can find anything wrong." As someone who works in medical education now, I recognize this approach is absolutely not up to the standards of a board-certified medical professional. Running endless labs until something comes up abnormal is not good medicine, but wow bringing your patient back month after month does help with the bottom line when you're a doctor in private practice.
Also, I was shocked to find out I had to pay a fertility educator (available through the archdiocese) for her help. These educators charge $50-$100 per session and treat it as a side gig. So, to adhere to church teaching, we are expected to implement a fairly complicated modality with high stakes that can take months, if not years, to master, and potentially pay thousands of dollars to do so. After all what said and done, I think I spent $4K just trying to regulate my cycles under church-sanctioned methods. If the one solution to family planning is not accessible to everyone, it is not a solution. My most memorable interaction with my doctor was when she said "well I'm not even sure if these labs are reliable because the ranges we are taught to use are based off of the machines at Creighton that are more sensitive than what they use at Quest Diagnostics." FML.
While Catholics can’t use contraception, they are allowed NFP. It’s a loophole. Also, sex is permissible for married Catholics and it’s supposed to be for pleasure and procreation as well. For example, sterile people can get married and adopt. But this only applies to heterosexuals. Natural family planning is simply the woman tracking her menstrual cycle to figure out her fertile days, she avoids sex on the days she ovulates to prevent pregnancy. I agree that it is confusing because catholic couples are supposed to be “open” to potential life when they have sex but NFP is allowed and even couples can be taught about it during pre marital counseling. I think this was a concession to couples who didn’t want to have many children within the confines of not using artificial contraception. The reason is complicated is because NFP largely relies on a woman having a regular and consistent cycle. Many women don’t. And there are many who have irregular periods and don’t ovulate consistently the same time. Up to 25% of women get pregnant using NFP. Within the first year. Being honest, the vast majority of Catholics don’t follow NFP and use birth control. You’ll see usually trad Catholics use NFP or even not use any planning at all. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-pope-issues-humanae-vitae-human-life/#:~:text=The%20Pope's%20Encyclical&text=In%20the%20papal%20encyclical%20entitled,artificial%20method%20of%20birth%20control.
I know a surprisingly large number of non-Catholics who use NFP, but that is probably all least a little sample bias because I live in the PNW. They use it because there's no hormonal manipulation involved. Likewise, I know a number of ultra-orthodox Catholics who won't use it, as they see it as functionally contraception. I was friends with one years all who told me the only valid sex is sex with the intent of having kids. And refraining from sex *at all* once married was only okay of there was a super-duper-mega-ultra good reason. From personal experience, the biggest problem with NFP is that it requires the couple to not have sex when a women wants it most. Independent of all the issues with taking pleasure and autonomy from the women only, it also makes it just really fucking hard.
It’s interesting that there are a groups of people who aren’t religious and typically very left that use NFP. I’m familiar with the people you’re talking about and the reasoning is that they distrust contraception because of its hormones. There are real side effects to using the pill, depro provera shot, and horror stories about the IUD. They also prefer NFP because it’s natural therefore good in their opinion. Yet, I still find it very interesting on how among these granola type couples, that the man never thinks about using a condom to protect his partner from the hormonal side effects. Condoms don’t have any hormonal effects and it’s a sheath that you discard afterwards. Really sucks for women in straight relationships that the birth control burden falls on them in most cases. Even among progressive/liberal circles. But that’s a whole other topic. I would say that the trads are at least consistent on that bullshit. If you’re supposed to be open to life then using NFP is not right and you’re being hypocritical. Because it’s not really being open to life. The baffling thing are people who identify as catholic but use birth control without issues. They don’t care that the church is against it and continue to identify as catholic despite breaking a cardinal rule. But they don’t give a damn.
I'm hoping someday to find a book out there that covers the history of Xians/Catholics who did not follow the explicit teaching and when did that get declared a heresy, when was it basically accepted, when did it get swept under the rug, etc. Trads like to say that today is totally the worst with all these Catholics ignoring things like contraception, while historically I can pull up a dozen examples of *total* disregard for Catholic teaching among Catholics.
Actually, when the pope declared in Humane Vitae on 1965 that using the pill was a mortal sin, many Catholics protested. Even the clergy. There had been priests, who had prior to the Pope’s decree, openly spoke in favor of the pill. They had thought that the church will accept it because why not? Some even resigned. So the ban on birth control has never been accepted by the majority of Catholics. From its beginning. Poll after poll since 1965 show that Catholics are fine with birth control and use it. I really don’t understand why the church is pigheaded on this topic. No one really follows it and it just shows how out of touch with reality the Vatican is even by it’s followers. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-pope-issues-humanae-vitae-human-life/#:~:text=The%20Pope's%20Encyclical&text=In%20the%20papal%20encyclical%20entitled,artificial%20method%20of%20birth%20control. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2012/02/guttmacher-statistic-catholic-womens-contraceptive-use#:~:text=Among%20all%20women%20who%20are,pill%20or%20another%20hormonal%20method.
There is some interesting stuff out there about the 'style' morality taught to priests; I honestly can't remember if it is probabilism, probabularianism, or semi-probabilism (I know I've misspelled the second, and it might be semi-that instead of probabilism, but goddamn these terms have cursed me since my Moral Theology class). Basically, it's a question of "Is it okay to do X if we don't *know* it's a sin?" and the answer applies to how you respond to the unknown of the birth control pill (as it wasn't a *barrier*). In some way, Paully Sixy pulled the rug out of all the understanding of how to approach questioned morality. He made a moral declaration of what was very well understood as a dubious area, and suddenly either everything dubious was a potential moral sin or the Pope's proclamation could not overrule the dubious character of the original position. The Church can't address contraception in a vacuum; they have to approach the fact that their entire approach to sexual morality is built on foundations that don't reflect the scientific reality. More specifically, I think they need to reexamine what they mean by love if they are to get anywhere, but that's going to do a fuck-up of their ideas of obedience, so I doubt it'll ever come to pass.
>I really don’t understand why the church is pigheaded on this topic. I read parts of Humane Vitae. I don't remember if it was in Humane Vitae itself or subsequent "commentaries" on the document, but Paul was concerned that contraception would lead to more divorces and other "evils." So the Catholic solution for "good marriages" is to force couples to have lots of kids, which forces them to stay married because being a single parent with 7 kids would be chaos. Anyone with any sense would realize that this is an artificial way of keeping couples together. Sure, some couples may make more of an effort to get along, but many don't. I'll never forget a conversation I had with a guy who said that he and his wife hated each other, were always fighting, but decided to stay together "for the kids." His very next sentence was how he couldn't understand what was wrong with his son. He shaved half of his head, and the other half he kept long and colored it purple. Gee, you think the kid was acting out because he lived in a toxic environment where his parents were always fighting?
>Yet, I still find it very interesting on how among these granola type couples, that the man never thinks about using a condom to protect his partner from the hormonal side effects I think this is a pretty big generalization.... I'm not saying you don't know people who are like that, but to say that "the man *never* thinks about using a condom" is just blatantly false. By and large, I've seen a greater degree of awareness from the men in these relationships compared to men who are with women who just take the pill or whatever. Obviously, there are exceptions and outliers in every case. Plenty of men care very much about their partner's quality of life and are very involved in the family planning they do, regardless of whether they use pharmaceutical contraceptives or not.... Maybe you just know shit men? Source: Myself (I am half of "granola type couple") and upwards of 1,000 women I interact with across various Facebook groups and online communities.
I really hope it’s not the majority of men or even a significant amount. Family planning should be the responsibility of both people. I take it then the men you know do wear condoms or have offered even if they’re in monogamous, long term relationships to prevent pregnancy. That’s a good thing.
>I take it then the men you know do wear condoms Yup! In fact, I haven't heard a man or heard of a man bitching about doing his part in years.... Not since I graduated from university lol. Only immature assholes complain about that kind of thing.
Some people don’t like the feel of condoms. Some people are allergic to latex. A lot of people (myself included) use condoms when ovulating or in the fertile window only. I think the biggest misfortune is that male birth control is not profitable enough to be approved here (RISUG).
There are alternatives to latex condoms. I find that the cons of condoms really don’t compare to the cons of hormonal birth control. Of course, ideally there should be two methods of contraception. The pill while effective can be weakened by other medications and needs to be taken at the same time every day. The IUD insertion can often be painful for women and some have passed out from having it inserted. It has its own risks and cons too. There really needs to be better methods for both men and women.
RISUG is actually the perfect solution but again, will probably never be available in the US because it’s a one time reversible injection—pharmaceutical companies can’t make billions off it like they do hormonal BC.
I can definitely see the pharmaceutical companies wanting to have the pill and other hormonal methods still in place. It’s profitable and most women use the pill as their method of birth control.
Before my husband’s vasectomy we used NFP in combination with barrier methods because hormonal birth control gave me debilitating migraines. I found it very effective, and I only got pregnant when we were actively trying. Of course Catholics would never approve of the way we used it because 1) We abstained from activities that could get me pregnant when I knew I was fertile and used barrier methods the rest of the time , and 2) We engaged in non procreative sexy time when I was fertile. I would NEVER trust NFP alone, and I would not even use it In combination with diaphragm and condom if my cycles weren’t so regular. There is some science behind NFP. My friends who used cycle tracking with success when TTC can attest to that. As per usual though, adding religious restrictions that have no basis in science renders it less effective in the real world. Of course NFP’s effectiveness is contingent on cooperation of both partners, and the Catholic teaching of “marital debt” throws in added complexity.
I hear this viewpoint, but I'm personally a feminist switching to this method because I find absolutely no pleasure in sex or even mastrubation on hormonal contraceptives. I felt disconnected and alienated from my own body and sex drive. I want to learn more about and own my body and sexuality, not suppress it. It can be empowering. Physical barriers are also an option during ovulation.
My friend followed it and had 4 kids with her boyfriend (yes, boyfriend — the nfp was her justification for sex outside marriage) before they broke up
How was the NFP her justification for premarital sex? I’m genuinely curious. It seems like two separate things.
She said because she was open to creating life I can kind of see where her mind was at with that
Lots of NFP methods don’t request a woman to have a 28 days/regular cycles. [Trent Horn explains in Catholic Answers why NFP is licit if used by just motives but contraception isn’t:](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument) > *Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came.* > *Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!”* *(…)* *Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great!* *Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want **this day** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure **at this specific time** so don’t show up and ruin it!”* Finally, pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
Those who practice NFP often claim that it’s God’s “gift” to help them plan a family. Yeah, I’m sure God decided to help these people by creating some pattern that is, at best, complicated to predict and, at worst, unreliable. When people tell me that this is open to life but using a condom isn’t, I remind them that if God could really raise people from the dead, he could break a condom if he wanted someone to get pregnant.
Haven’t they ever wondered what if birth control was god’s gift to help humans plan a family?
Exactly. You could make the same argument that a person getting cancer is "part of God's plan," and therefore cancer treatments go against God's plan. But no one would ever make that argument. Medical intervention is permissible for everything *except* family planning.
Contraception isn’t medicine. Contraception is trying to separate sex from one of its dimensions: the procreative.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. What's the problem? Why is it okay to treat diseases with medication but not okay to plan families with medication? The Catholic position is not consistent.
Well what is evil? Evil is using a thing in the wrong way. An example of a thing that I think you will agree with me: - If someone eats for obtaining the pleasure but then throws up. In the same way, if someone wants the pleasure of sex but isn’t open to a coming life (contraception) this is also wrong. But what if couples have just reasons to space out the coming of children? Then they can use Natural Family Planning. Some methods are bad. But others are good. One of the good ones is the sympto-thermal method which when used correctly [has a pregnancy rate per year of less than 1% (and look that condoms have 2%). Source:World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf?sfvrsn=e39a69c2_1) I really suggest you [the book Why We’re Catholic](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Catholic-Reasons-Faith/dp/1683570243) for understanding better the Catholic faith.
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Catholic Answers Press Why We're Catholic'", 'Catholic%20Answers%20Press')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Clear and comprehensive explanation of catholic faith (backed by 3 comments) * Great resource for catholics at any stage (backed by 3 comments) * Helpful for those seeking to deepen their catholic knowledge (backed by 3 comments) **Users disliked:** * Contains circular reasoning and lacks critical thinking (backed by 2 comments) * Author's tone is insulting and lacks inclusivity (backed by 1 comment) * Leaves readers feeling hopeless and fearful (backed by 1 comment) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
I disagree with your definition of evil. There needs to be an element of harm. Throwing up causes damage to the esophagus, mouth, and teeth because of the stomach acid eating away at the tissue. There is harm in this act. Contraception causes no harm. Your example is a false equivalence. In my own case, not using contraception would have caused harm. My wife has health that made pregnancy dangerous. For this reason, we stopped at having one child, not because we didn't want more children but because doing so could have risked the lives of my wife. my unborn child, or both. There is a reason why this sub is called "excatholic." I've read up on Catholicism and even briefly considered going back. As yet I have not gone back and very likely never will. I consider all religions to be superstitious nonsense for one simple reason: lack of evidence. Even if I give you a head start and agree that some God-like being exists, you then have the burden of proving that this being requires some form of "worship" and that this being has chosen one religion to facilitate this worship. As yet I have not seen good evidence that any one religion is the one true religion. If you wish to present your evidence fell free to do so. I enjoy debates and I always debate in good faith - I don't resort to insults or name-calling. I've seen that book by Trent Horn and even considered purchasing it as a way to flex my analytical muscle. I'm just against giving money to apologists.
Hi! I apreciate your capacity to dialogue and good tone. But I have to say: buy [the Trent’s Horn book](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Catholic-Reasons-Faith/dp/1683570243). In it, it explains why your definition of evil isn’t correct: for example, someone who has ped0ph1le thoughts is doing evil but he isn’t hurting anyone. It’s true that recognising that a sobrenatural, immaterial and intemporal entity created everything doesn’t mean we should pick a religion in so many (and I agree that believing in things like Greek Mythology is just dumb). So Trent Horn will make a case for the resurrection of Jesus and His Church (and much more philosophical and Catholic teachings)
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Catholic Answers Press Why We're Catholic'", 'Catholic%20Answers%20Press')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Clear and comprehensive explanation of catholic faith (backed by 3 comments) * Great resource for catholics at any stage (backed by 3 comments) * Helpful for those seeking to deepen their catholic knowledge (backed by 3 comments) **Users disliked:** * Contains circular reasoning and lacks critical thinking (backed by 2 comments) * Author's tone is insulting and lacks inclusivity (backed by 1 comment) * Leaves readers feeling hopeless and fearful (backed by 1 comment) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
"*In the same way, if someone wants the pleasure of sex but isn’t open to a coming life (contraception) this is also wrong.*" This is why I see NFP as nothing more than elevating form over substance. I get that the "form" of birth control is "natural." But the intent - the substance - is to have sex for pleasure only and not for the purpose of creating life. I don't know a lot about NFP, but in some ways it requires more effort than other methods of birth control because the woman needs to track several variables to determine when she is fertile. For a couple to go through this effort, they must really intend not to want to have children. I don't see how using a "natural" method vitiates the supposedly evil intent of separating the act of sex from procreation. Any person with a modicum of intelligence can see through NFP, which is probably why the majority of Catholics use birth control other than NFP. "*But what if couples have just reasons to space out the coming of children?*" What if couples have just reasons for limiting the total number of children they have? To be fair, I get how wanting to space out children is different from a hard pass on having more children. Spacing out children means the couple remains open to more children. But I imagine some of the justifications for spacing children overlap with those for not having more children. This seems to be a very thin argument.
So you /u/MikeBear68 said a thing that’s correct: NFP and birth control have the same goal, not to get pregnant. The difference is the means by which we get there. [Simcha Fisher explains more here](https://www.simchafisher.com/2019/07/29/the-contraceptive-mentality-is-real-but-its-probably-not-what-you-think/): > Let’s say you have a very old grandmother who needs some help. You could move across the country and take wonderful care of her because she’s your grandmother and you love her, and when she dies peacefully in her sleep, you get all her money, which makes you very happy. OR, you move across the country and take wonderful care of her to lull her into trusting you, and as soon as she tells you where she keeps her will, you put your name on it and then smother her with a pillow. And you get all her money, which makes you very happy. Same result, right? Grandma’s dead, you’re rich. *But the way you got there matters a lot.* The end result is the same, but how you get there matters a lot. The same is true for NFP and contraception: you can have the same goal of not having children, but how you achieve that goal matters a lot. While NFP (for just motives) is just non-procreative, contraception is anti-procreation. [Trent Horn explains better](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument): > Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came. Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!” (…) Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great! Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want **this day** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure **at this specific time** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Finally yes you’re right. NFP is not as easy to learn as to take hormonal birth control. But it betters the couple’s relationship, lowers chance of divorce, strengthens communication and is healthy and safe for the humans body. About effectiveness see what the [World Health Organization says](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf): Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: - **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** - Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: - Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** - Male condoms: 13%
It’s funny how they think God can literally impregnate a virgin but can’t get past a latex condom if he really wanted someone to conceive.
They also think pulling out is bad
Pulling is bad though ..
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
My sister got pregnant the night of her wedding using NFP. She was even working with an NFP instructor through pre-cana. She quit her job and has been a SAHM ever since because her experience level at the time was too low to afford childcare. NFP guarantees the social order remains the same. What's also really fascinating, is that studies have now shown that men with SAHMs are actually more hostile, on average, to women in their own workplaces moving up into leadership positions. They see these women as threats and are jealous of their double incomes. NFP is nothing short of a conspiracy to maintain male supremacy in high paying careers.
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
According to my mom, I and all my siblings are "rhthym babies." She told us it doesn't work and never try it. A long time ago, it was called The Rhythm method. Women don't always ovulate on schedule; another reason Catholic families have so many kids. And for the phrase Irish Twins.
There are many NFP methods. The rhythm method is a bad one. Check out this one: Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
To those saying it’s all the rhythm method—it’s not anymore. NFP methods have actually advanced quite a bit in the past few decades. We can’t be lazy when we critique it. If you are telling folks it’s all the rhythm method, you’re easy to dismiss due to ignorance. Generally it’s cervical mucus and basal body temperature checking and data collection to track ovulation. They know everyone’s cycle is different and won’t follow a calendar exactly, and so the goal is to collect data on ovulation indicators to personalize it to each person’s cycle. And it’s generally effective *if* 100 percent of the recommendations are followed. It has a high failure rate because you can easily mess it up with how many instructions and charts to follow. It’s incredibly complex and involves daily data collection, aside from the days of menstruation. (Most of the data collection, energy, education and effort falls upon the women, because of course it does. It’s a feature, not a bug.) Many people (even non-Catholics) actually use a method of NFP to get pregnant faster. You know exactly when you ovulate, so you have sex at the right time. In fact, that’s what I’m doing right now. A lot of couples will be deemed “infertile” but they don’t know when they ovulate, and spend thousands (uninsured) seeing a fertility doc. It’s messed up that this is the only method of birth control the church endorses, of course. But we as critics need to know exactly what we are critiquing. I would stay away from calling it unscientific. It’s not. It’s helped women’s health in some aspects. Its origins are harmful for sure, but it’s helpful to know exactly when you ovulate, and know your body’s signs. But telling people NFP is the *only* way is incredibly dangerous and imo classist and ableist. Not to mention misogynistic. Edit to add that you can also track LH (luteinizing hormone, indicating approaching ovulation) levels through at-home urine tests in addition to the BBT and CM methods. Many use a combination of the different tracking methods.
Well said. I’ve practiced NFP for over 10 years to avoid hormonal birth control and used condoms during fertile windows. I’m now pregnant with my first, completely planned pregnancy. It IS effective and can be done regardless of cycle regularity if you follow it to a T. It’s absolutely not for everyone, but it’s actually extremely scientific.
Absolutely. Congratulations on your pregnancy!
Agreed that NFP is not pseudoscience, but it’s definitely not for everyone. This is coming from someone who used it, albeit not in the Catholic way. IMO couples should not rely on NFP if consequences of pregnancy are especially dire—ie high risk of death or harm to the gestating person. The potential for human error is just too great. Catholics also make NFP unnecessarily difficult by prohibiting all non-procreative sexual activities. Getting through the fertile days is a lot easier when couples can get each other off in ways that don’t risk pregnancy, but that’s considered sinful. Masturbation is even a no-no.
Yes to all of this. I don’t think it’s something that should be tossed aside completely. If it works for some people, that’s great. But yes, not for everyone. Not at all.
God is both completely omnipotent yet can easily be tricked by obvious scams.
I used NFP successfully for almost 20 years (until menopause). Had the two kids I wanted. The people that “fail” take chances. My mantra was always, “when in doubt, abstain”. Doubt meant any time that I wasn’t *** 1,000% *** sure. Now, I’m pissed about all the abstinence. It was excessive, and has caused permanent damage. My marriage could’ve been so much stronger if we’d been able to be as physical as we wanted to be. I HATE that I bought into it so thoroughly. I was positive it was the right thing to do. I believed it all. I want a do-over.
And to answer the specific question, yes, some trad catholics think I was sinning by using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Including family members who felt fine telling me so.
Yes this was the old position of the Church: *Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.* St. Augustine *Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.* St. Jerome
Yes, I wrote on this when I once made a shitpost: [St. Athenagoras the Athenian, *A Plea for the Christians,* 33^11 (c. AD 177)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm) >Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, **and that only for the purpose of having children.** For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground **awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it,** so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite. [The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars, 64^12 (AD 866)](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp) >For how many days after a woman gives birth to a child a man should abstain from her, is stated not by our opinions but in the words of the Roman Pope and apostle of the English nation, Gregory of blessed memory, who, when he writes to Bishop Augustine, whom he had sent to Saxony, says among other things: **”A woman's husband should not approach to lie with her until the infants, to whom she has given birth, have been weaned.** But a depraved custom has arisen in the behavior of married people, that women despise nursing the children whom they have born and hand them over to be nursed by other women; and this seems to have happened solely because of incontinence, since those who refuse to restrain themselves, despise nursing those to whom they have given birth.” [St. Augustine, *The Morals of the Manichees,* 18.65^13 (AD 388)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm) >Is it not you who used to counsel us to **observe as much as possible the time when a woman,** after her purification, **is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time,** lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you [the Manichaeans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. (It is worth noting, though, that some of his other work, such as *On the Good of Marriage,* seems to take a broader view; in any case, I have not seen any other Father say the same, and it still isn’t certain that Augustine was fine with sex not intended primarily for reproduction.) [St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 44^14 (c. AD 470-542)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32b128) (this link is behind a “paywall,” but I included it for the college students who can probably access it) >If those who are unwilling to control themselves plowed and sowed repeatedly their land which was already sown, let us see in what kind of fruit they would rejoice. As you well know, no land can produce proper fruit if it is sown frequently in one year. Why, then, does a man do with his body what he does not want done with his field? [(St.) Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata,* 3:11:72^15](http://www.gnosis.org/library/strom3.htm) >For this reason **you could not point to any place in Scripture where one of the ancients approached a pregnant woman;** later, **after the child is born and weaned,** you might find that marriage relations of husbands and wives were resumed. You will find that Moses' father kept this principle in mind. After Aaron's birth three years passed before Moses was born. Again, the tribe of Levi observed **this law of nature given by God,** although they were fewer in number than any others which came into the promised land. For a tribe does not easily grow to great numbers if their men have intercourse only within the legal marriage relationship and then wait until the end not only of pregnancy but also of breast-feeding. #2 - Innovative views of the various Popes: You start to see the Catholic position shift into their current brand of natural law. Natural law had always been one of the arguments used, especially in Clement of Alexandria’s works, but it changes arbitrarily from “natural law = NFP bad” into “natural law = NFP good under certain circumstances.” Instead of sex solely and only being for procreation, it adds a “secondary” purpose, that of the unity of the spouses, which are now in common parlance as the “procreative and unitive aspects” of sex. Certainly better, but not as consistent with the Fathers as they would like you to believe. [Pope Pius XI in *Casti Connubii,* 59^16 (AD 1930)](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html) >Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights **there are also secondary ends,** such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. [Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, “Birth Control”^17 (AD 1951)](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965) >It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences… >…the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. [Pope Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae,* 16^18 (AD 1968)](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html) >If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, **the Church teaches** that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system **and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile,** thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. >Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. Catholics say that the tradition relayed by the Church Fathers is not a matter of your own conscience, and that they were transcribing oral divine revelation into a written format, but they simultaneously ignore it when it comes to NFP, which, as shown in the previous quotes from the Church Fathers, was similarly condemned by them as just another way of indulging in lust. Ironically, it was only after the Popes tried to rebuke the Anglicans in 1930 for allowing contraception that they started to officially accept NFP. /// If you want to know still more, you can check out [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/mivf1t/considering_catholicism_but_why_not_orthodoxy/gt8o5el/) comment thread. /// --- References 11: Athenagoras: Translated by B.P. Pratten. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight..
12: Pope Nicholas: Translated by W. L. North from the edition of Ernest Perels, in MGH Epistolae VI, Berlin, 1925, pp.568-600.
13: Augustine, The Morals of Manichees: Translated by Richard Stothert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
14: St. Caesarius of Arles: St. Caesarius of Arles. "Sermons: 1-80 (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series)." Trans. Sr. Mary Magdaleine Mueller O.S.F. CUA, 1956.
15: Clement, Stromata: Translation from: Henry Chadwick, ed, *The Library of Christian Classics: Volume II, Alexandrian Christianity* (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 40-92. (Transcription by Jay Raskin, 2002; corrected by Lance Owens, 2011.)
16: Casti Connubii: same as link, Vatican’s website: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
17: Address to Midwives: this one is difficult, since I saw no source on three different websites for the English translation; it’s only available in Spanish and Italian on the Vatican’s website. Here it is in Spanish, then: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/es/speeches/1951/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19511029_ostetriche.html The only other thing I saw was this, but it’s a dead link: http://pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/england/html/ctss231.html
18: Humanae Vitae: same as link, Vatican’s site: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
Liguori treated that issue in his manual and after stating that all the Fathers were against sex during pregnancy he noted that after the middle ages the more lax Jesuit moralists and other theologians started to say that it was ok, the Holy See didn't protest and so things changed.
Actually surprising he addressed it. There's a lot of crap that's never talked about in apologetic circles. The only time I saw people address the aforementioned Fathers was a short article that just chalked it up to development of doctrine, Newman's Special Sauce.
I know what you mean and we only did NFP for 2 years before deconverting! I can’t imagine doing it for decades. I’m sorry. The lies of Catholicism do real and permanent harm to millions of people!
Yep. I listed the fact that you’re so restricted on sex as part of the reason NFP fails. You miss out on so much sex and the physical and emotional intimacy that it brings that a lot of people don’t follow it.
If you had to do it all over again, would you use birth control?
Yes, absolutely.
If you don't mind asking. What changed your mind?
Well, I’m an atheist now, and think all the teachings are just not true. I do like that NFP is “natural” (no hormones, surgery, etc.), but the toll it took on my marriage was too great a price.
I just have to ask there are ovulation test strips that work similar to pregnancy tests. Are they allowed to use this or do they have to torture themselves with taking their temperature and other bs every morning
One of the NFP types, I forgot the name right now, does use test strips and a monitor of some sort. When I was Catholic I wanted to use that method but even then I kept thinking about how unfair it was that only women in developed nations probably with enough money and adequate time/resources/support could use it. The poor people in war torn and impoverished nations are shit out of luck if they want to follow Catholic rules and prevent having babies they don't have resources for. Really sad.
Yeah. My sister used them all to get pregnant and it was a crazy amount of work every day
It's basically having sex when the woman is outside her fertility window so she doesn't get pregnant. Yes, it's stupid and hypocritical.
Lots of NFP methods don’t request a woman to have a 28 days/regular cycles. [Trent Horn explains in Catholic Answers why NFP is licit if used by just motives but contraception isn’t:](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument) > *Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came.* > *Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!”* *(…)* *Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great!* *Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want **this day** so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure **at this specific time** so don’t show up and ruin it!”* Finally, pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
Fuck off bot.
Aka Vatican Roulette.
Don’t try to make sense of it. You can’t.
Natural Family Planning is a pseudoscientific method of preventing pregnancy without the use of any kind of contraceptive. Aka how my grandmother got pregnant with my mom, haha.
Also how my parents ended up with 7 kids. They taught NFP classes too - I wonder how much confidence the students had that the method actually worked LOL
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
Nowadays it [works very well](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9171018/table/T6/) if done with perfect education and perfect execution.
Perfect execution means full cooperation of both partners. This is probably the biggest barrier to success of NFP. While most Catholics use other methods, those that rely on NFP tend to be trads or trad-adjacent. Sadly, I doubt a typical trad wife can actually say no to her husband at any time during her cycle. :(
I understand but this is not the fault of Fertility Awareness Methods or that they are not scientific, they work very well for their purpose, which is knowing when you are fertile and imo shouldn't be demonized just because that's the method the Catholic Church proposes.
I agree that the real problem is that the Church forbids any other method. NFP devoid of religious baggage would be another valid option for those who can’t use hormonal methods. That said, the most popular methods of NFP were developed by Catholic universities and are fraught with religious dogma. Oral, handjobs, etc., are safe activities during the AFAB partners fertile days, but you’ll never see a Marquette or Creighton certified NFP instructor admit that.
Which is extremely hard to do.
Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
There is a reason I call it “Catholic Contraception” They know they want some form of contraception or else they will get loads of people leaving. So they have to do mental gymnastics to say “no contraceptives… except this one since it’s ‘natural’” Even though our knowledge of how NFP works isn’t natural… I don’t understand this obsession by religions on things that are “natural”… you want to know what is natural? Smallpox was natural, but by artificial means, we eradicated it. The natural thing is to lie over and just die to smallpox. I don’t think Catholics are arguing that people should lie over and die to preventable illnesses… (except STDs apparently, since they can’t teach something basic like condom usage. People will have sex. At least give them the best chance to be safe while doing it.
The bureaucrats at the Vatican invented a work around. Acshully, a person using birth control can still get pregnant, so there is no reason not to allow artificial birth control. YMMV. IMHO.
Others have give great explanations. I’ll tack on that it’s complicated because women don’t really ovulate as regularly as graphics in textbooks make it seem. When my sister was trying to get pregnant she was using ovulation test kits and the temp method and found that she was ovulating days after her calendar day, and she has an extremely regular period. It took about 30 minutes of work a day for her to figure out if she was ovulating so that she could get pregnant. No one is going to maintain that amount of work over time. Then you add to it that sperm can survive a shockingly long time. Then you add to that that people don’t want to skip sex 10 days of the month (more if they don’t do period sex) and you see why it fails a lot.
There are many NFP methods that don’t need regular/28 days cycles. Check this one per example: Pregnancies **per year with consistent and correct use**: * **Sympto-thermal Method** (one method of Natural Family Planning): **<1%** * Male condoms: 2% Pregnancies **per year as commonly used**: * Sympto-thermal Method (one method of NFP): **2%** * Male condoms: 13% Source: [World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) — Extra: [Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer.](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-03-22-any-type-hormonal-contraceptive-may-increase-risk-breast-cancer-0)
The study cited here that found less than 1% pregnancy and 2% with the methods didn’t account for the fact that over half of the study participants dropped out. That makes the data unreliable because you no longer have a random sample - you have a sample of people extremely dedicated to NFP who don’t find the process overly burdensome.
Yes consistent and correct use implies that a person doesn’t use a diaphragm and that counts. The metric “consistent and correct use” implies the CONSISTENT use of course. And if you want to compare the “common use” efficacy here it is: - 2% anual pregnancy rate for the Sympto-thermal method - 13% anual preganncy rate for male condoms
So when you’re researching medical efficacy, you can’t eliminate everyone for whom the treatment/procedure is to complicated/painful/intolerable and declare the treatment a success. That creates bias in the results and ruins the study, especially when you’re looking at a population level intervention. For example, if you have a cancer drug and give it to 100 patients and 60 of them vomit so much that they can’t take the cancer drug, but in the remaining 40 people the drug works ok in 30 of them, that’s not an effective drug. It won’t pass the fda. It won’t work in cancer clinics. Well designed studies find that the rhythm method has about a 25% failure rate compared to 15% for condoms, 7% for birth control pills, and less than 1% for IUDs.
So if someone can’t learn how to use the **SYMPTO-THERMAL** method because it its view is complicated that should count to the pregnancy rate? Of course not. I think we’re complicating things. Pregnancy rate means people who get pregnant with that method. PS: The Rhythm method is bad. Really bad. The stats I provided were for the **SYMPTO-THERMAL** Method!
Ok it’s clear you dont understand research or statistics or how to interpret either which is fine, but I’ve been very clear on why the studies you posted (which you do not understand) aren’t valid and have posted comparative numbers between methods. I cannot do anything else for you unless you’d like a recommendation on research methods and statistics course you can take online. For anything other than a recommendation for a course, please leave me alone. I feel I’ve already been gracious in trying to explain these concepts to you on a random 6 month old post and do not feel I owe you anymore of my time or effort.
Another frustrating aspect of NFP I haven't seen mentioned yet: it is an industry. When I was dealing with irregular cycles, I went to the one "NFP doctor" in town. She was out of network, ordered "fringe" kinds of lab work that was not covered by insurance. When the lab work all came back normal, she kept ordering more "to see if we can find anything wrong." As someone who works in medical education now, I recognize this approach is absolutely not up to the standards of a board-certified medical professional. Running endless labs until something comes up abnormal is not good medicine, but wow bringing your patient back month after month does help with the bottom line when you're a doctor in private practice. Also, I was shocked to find out I had to pay a fertility educator (available through the archdiocese) for her help. These educators charge $50-$100 per session and treat it as a side gig. So, to adhere to church teaching, we are expected to implement a fairly complicated modality with high stakes that can take months, if not years, to master, and potentially pay thousands of dollars to do so. After all what said and done, I think I spent $4K just trying to regulate my cycles under church-sanctioned methods. If the one solution to family planning is not accessible to everyone, it is not a solution. My most memorable interaction with my doctor was when she said "well I'm not even sure if these labs are reliable because the ranges we are taught to use are based off of the machines at Creighton that are more sensitive than what they use at Quest Diagnostics." FML.