Natural Family Planning: Let's Talk

I think whenever you move into a new house or apartment, there's always one or two boxes that never get fully unpacked. I was going through such a box the other day and I found a little booklet that we got during one of our marriage prep classes. It's called "Pure Intimacy" by Jason Evert and it is about Natural Family Planning, or NFP. There is something very special about NFP because just upon hearing the name, a lot of people immediately go into "negativity mode" and I can't figure out why. I have a few theories, though, based on my own experience, speaking to others, and doing some research.
 
Ignorance. People fear that which they do not understand. I'm not sure where the negative connotations to NFP come from, but I know that most people do not have a clue about what NFP truly is or why the Church teaches it. Most people think it's the archaic "rhythm method" and that the Catholic Church "just wants people to have babies." I heard the joke: "You know what you call people who practice NFP, right? Parents." That pretty much sums up the big stereotype. NFP is ineffective--or so people think.
 
What most people don't know is that when NFP techniques are used as they are taught, they can be just as (or more) effective than other means of artificial birth control. Women are actually only fertile for a very brief time (only a few days) per cycle. NFP techniques, like the Creighton Method, allow a woman to know exactly when she is fertile and when she is not, each day of her cycle. This holds true for women with irregular cycles. Many women use NFP techniques to track their fertility to get pregnant, so why is it then so "archaic" or "unreliable" to use it to avoid pregnancy (simple reasoning says if you know when you are fertile, then don't have sex on those days. Voila!)? Speaking with and asking questions to certified NFP instructors or even "normal" people who practice it can quickly and easily dispel just about every concern you may have. I know because I was that untrusting skeptic.
 
Responsibility. I recently posed the question on my Facebook as to why people view NFP as a negative thing. Surprisingly, the answer I received most was "responsibility." I'm still not quite sure what that means, though. The couple doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions? They don't want to learn NFP? I don't know.
 
I was truly saddened by this answer. It immediately brought to mind the quote, "with great power comes great responsibility." If you want to have sex without responsibility, you strip it of its power. When a couple sterilizes the act, then its purpose and beauty are lost, and its sole purpose becomes selfish epidermal arousal.
 
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, where one particular paragraph on the "Consequences of Artificial Methods" seems as though it were written as today's observation, instead of being predicted over 40 years ago:

 

 "...Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." 

 

If this is the kind of evasion of responsibility that people refer to, well, this is exactly what we have gotten.

 

The Catholic Church is the only one that teaches NFP. They need to get with the times. Well, no. Even the sola scriptura Christians can't really refute what the Bible says:

 

"I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." Romans 12:1-2 

 

Just because the majority believes something, that doesn't make it Truth. God bless the Catholic Church for not abandoning her 2000 year old teachings!

 

Catholics are hypocrites because artificial contraception and NFP are used for the exact same reasons: to avoid pregnancy. True, NFP is often used to delay or space pregnancies; the intent may be the same, but the means to the result makes all the difference. For example, if two women wanted to avoid becoming overweight, one might go on a diet and exercise, while the other may become bulimic. They may end up with the same result--a slim body--but one woman exercised the virtue of temperance while the other committed gluttony topped with the physically-damaging practice of inducing vomiting. Similarly, two married couples may wish to delay pregnancy (same intent). One couple may simply abstain from sex during the woman's fertile period, while the other couple may have sterilized the woman with drugs and hormones (different means). Artificial contraceptives frustrate nature and God's design. God did not intend for every marital act to result in a pregnancy; if He did, a woman would be fertile every day just like a man. But women are actually mostly infertile. This is as much of a gift from God as her fertility is. Using the natural design of the human body as God created it is neither sinful nor immoral.

 

At this point I usually get the general question, "If drugs like the pill are immoral because they are not natural, then why are surgeries, blood transfusions, or [insert healing medical practice] all okay? Gosh, another Catholic hypocrisy!" Of course Catholics are not opposed to such medical advances! The big difference is that those medical practices are used to heal dysfunction and promote the proper functioning of the body as God ordained it. Contraception does the opposite: It prevents the proper and healthy functioning of one bodily system, inducing or simulating a dysfunctional state.

 

It is also extremely important to point out that contraceptives like the pill, the patch, the shot, etc, can be abortifacients. Life begins at conception and although it is not known for certain how often it occurs, conception is possible on these hormonal drugs. The drugs provide such a hostile environment (a uterine wall that is too thin for implantation) that the newly-formed baby dies and is aborted without the mother ever knowing. Playing roulette with life is just not something that we should do.

 

 

Natural Family Planning is not something that is completely unused these days. People, and even young married couples, do use these techniques. If you think you don't know a single soul who practices NFP, I'm here to prove you wrong. I am not afraid to talk about it and I would absolutely love to answer questions, talk, or even debate if you want.

 



 

 

Back to my booklet by Jason Evert. It's 42 pages of some of the best pro-NFP information and arguments I have ever read. I highly recommend it for anyone who is curious, who needs some convincing, or even for the naysayers who are looking for an argument. You can probably find it at many Catholic churches as part of the NFP marriage prep classes, or you can get it online for a whopping $2.95. Here's some food for thought (emphasis and [comments] are my own):

"Studies have shown that, unlike couples using other forms of contraception, couples who practice NFP have a divorce rate under 3 percent...First, NFP deepens intimacy between spouses...Because NFP removes the 'barriers' of contraceptive sex, the couple is given an increased sense of closeness--both physically and psychologically...Because NFP involves planned times of abstention from the marital act, it helps couples to find other ways of expressing affection to one another. As a result, the intimacy between them deepens...Second, the necessity of practicing self-control keeps spouses from taking each other for granted. Since the spouses are not constantly sexually 'available' to the other, the relationship is given space to breathe. In the words of one husband, 'It's wonderful because it almost creates the honeymoon over and over again.' Such anticipation of the marital act intensifies its joy. Contraception does not offer this benefit, but instead weakens restraint and promotes self-indulgence, which is the opposite of self-giving love...Third, NFP encourages communication and understanding between spouses. Unlike other forms of family planning, NFP requires the man and woman to share responsibility for this aspect of married life. [I guess there is that word "responsibility" again] In turn, this offers the couple opportunities to discuss their plans and hopes for the size of their family. [COMMUNICATION! The beginning of divorce often begins with the couple not communicating. NFP makes communication a priority.] Because NFP requires a mutual effort, the man gains new appreciation about how his wife's body functions. Instead of suppressing her fertility in order to conform to his desires, the husband who uses NFP conforms his sexual desires out of reverence for the way his bride has been created. Finally, when a couple is practicing chastity within marriage and obeying the Church's teaching on sexuality, they avoid any guilt or anxiety associated with the opposite lifestyle. The union of their wills with the will of God allows them to deepen their spiritual lives and love each other more perfectly." (page 3-5)

"I'm not sure my spouse will go along with this...Understandably, the idea of abstaining from sex at times may not sit well at first...Abstaining from sex for a time is a normal part of married life, due to travel, illness, childbirth, or even simple consideration of an exhausted spouse. Healthy marriages survive these times and grow stronger, and NFP couples know from experience that the times apart serve to draw them closer together. However, research shows that NFP couples do not have intercourse less often than other couples. They just time it differently. [About ~60% of your days are "available" with NFP] Despite what some spouses may fear, endorsements of NFP are resounding from husbands as well as wives. One man explained to me that NFP 'keeps the passion alive!' Another described it as 'the best kept secret.' In many cases, husbands find that their wives are actually more responsive after switching to NFP. I once received a letter from a wife who said that while she and her first husband were using contraception, she felt like a 'toy or a recreational vehicle.' [Contraception allows the woman to be "used" because she is expected to be "available" at all times and it is her responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. Artificial contraception does make women more into some sort of toy instead of the complex and beautiful creation that she is.]" (page 5-6)

"The Church will never force any couple to use NFP. Rather, the Church gently and firmly invites us to virtue. To understand the moral problem of contraception, it helps to have an understanding of its history. Many assume that birth control was invented in the 1960s, but the practice is nothing new. Various methods of artificial birth control have been used for more than four thousand years. In ancient times, people would swallow potions to cause temporary sterility. Others would use linens, wool, crocodile dung, or animal skins as barrier methods; or they would fumigate a woman's uterus to keep her from bearing life...In the early 1930s, women's magazines even recommended using Lysol or athlete's foot medicine as a spermicide! However, Christians always stood out from such cultures because they refused to use contraception. It was part of the Christian faith. All Christian denominations condemned the use of contraception until 1930, when the Anglican Church decided to allow it in some circumstances. Their move was followed up by a similar endorsement by The United States' Federal Council of Churches. At the time, even the secular media was shocked by the idea that Christian churches would endorse contraception. The Washington Post predicted that such a switch 'would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous.'...Many Protestants agreed, such as Lutherans and Southern Baptists who called contraception 'a twentieth-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy,' that would 'prove seriously detrimental to the morals of our nation.'...Unfortunately, these protestations were short-lived, as Protestantism as a whole caved in on the issue." (page 7-9)

"What authority does the Church have to tell us what to do in our marriage? Veiled behind this question is a much deeper one: 'What authority does the Church have in my life at all?'...To obey God when it comes to our sexuality is a true sign that we love and trust him more than we love and trust ourselves. Since some of God's commandments involve sex, and Christ ordered His Church to teach all that He commands (Matt 28:20), the Church has the duty and authority to pass on to us what God has revealed about sexual morality...In commissioning individuals to go and preach His message, Jesus emphasized: 'He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me" (Luke 10:16). Christ invested the Church with His own teaching authority because He knew that He would not be with the apostles on earth forever. He established a Church with bishops who "give instruction in sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9). The faithful are to submit to these spiritual leaders and defer to their authority (Heb. 13:17) [Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you], so that they might not be led away by strange and diverse teachings. The authority of the apostles was passed on to the bishops down through the ages as it had been to Joshua from Moses: through the imposition of hands (cf. Deut. 34:9). The gates of hell would not prevail against this one Church (cf. Matt. 1:18), which is to be the pillar and foundation of truth (cf. John 14:26) so that she teaches what God entrusted to her. The Church guards His children as a mother watches over her young ones. The children may not always understand the mother's reasons for her rules, but they would do well to trust that her commandments come from a loving heart and not a dictator's whims." (page 19-20) 

"Does the Bible say anything about contraception? Although the word 'contraception' is never mentioned in Scripture [One of many examples why the Bible can't be the "final authority" on everything, because the Bible does not include explicit rules for everything that would ever come up throughout history. Hence Jesus established the Church. Scripture as we know it was an afterthought that came later.], the act itself is condemned. For example, sterilization is condemned in Deuteronomy 23:1, and withdrawal is condemned in Genesis 38, in the story of Onan. This story provides the clearest Scriptural case against contraception. In keeping with the custom of the time, Onan took his brother's widow as his own wife, to raise children in his dead brother's name. However, 'whenever he had relations with [her], he wasted his seed on the ground' (Gen. 38:9) to ensure that pregnancy did not take place. The next verse tells us that God was 'greatly offended' by Onan's actions, and struck him dead. Despite what the text plainly says, some argue that God killed him for failing to fulfill the levirate law (to give his brother's widow children). But Scripture indicates that the punishment for violating this law was public humiliation (cf. Deut 25:5-10), not the death penalty. What if Onan had not wasted his seed but simply chose not to have intercourse? Would God have taken his life? Scripture says no." (page 21-22)

"Our doctor told us that birth control is safe. Why should we think otherwise? Consider the following possible side-effects of contraception, and then ask yourself if you would consider these methods 'safe': (1)Birth control pills: According to the journal of the Mayo Clinic, 21 of 23 studies of women who took the Pill prior to having their first baby showed that such women increased their risk of developing breast cancer...The Pill also increases a woman's risk of cervical cancer, liver cancer, and potentially fatal blood clots. A common complaint of Pill users is a decrease in one's sex drive. Part of this is because the Pill increases a woman's level of SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin), which decreases the amount of testosterone available in her body. It has been thought that this undesirable side-effect would be reversible. However, research published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine showed that the levels of SHBG were still twice as high in women a year after going off the Pill... (2)Condom: According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, women who use barrier methods of birth control are more than twice as likely to suffer preeclampsia during childbirth. Here's why: During intercourse, the woman's immune system develops a tolerance to the man's sperm and seminal fluid. For several hours after intercourse, a woman's immune cells will collect and transfer a man's foreign proteins and entire sperm cells from her cervix to her lymph nodes, where her immune system learns to recognize his genes. However, if the couple decides to use a barrier method of birth control for an extended period of time before having children, the womb will not be accustomed to the sperm, and the woman's immune system may treat them as foreign bodies. This can disrupt the delicate balance of hormones and cause the woman's blood vessels to constrict, leading to higher blood pressure in the expectant mother. This condition (preeclampsia) is the third leading cause of women dying during childbirth. However, a man's semen offers a protective effect against preeclampsia, because the woman's immune system is more likely to recognize his baby. (3)The Shot: Women have sued the makers of the shot for 700 million dollars...because the shot thins out a woman's bones. After years of receiving birth control injections, a young woman could have the bones of a 50 to 60 year old. For this reason, the FDA has attached a "Black Box Warning" on the shot, which is the most serious warning that can be attached to a prescription drug." Children born to women on the shot are more likely to have webbed toes and fingers, and chromosomal anomalies. The boys are twice as likely to have genital deformities, and the baby girls are more likely to suffer masculinizing effects of the drug's chemicals, causing genital abnormalities. Because of its link to breast cancer, veterinarians stopped prescribing Depo-Provera for dogs. However, it's still being given to women, and is often injected into child molesters as a punishment that kills their sex drive! (4)The Patch: The Associated Press reported in 2005 that they petitioned the FDA for a database containing 16,00 different reports of adverse reactions to the patch. Within the reports were 23 deaths associated with the patch, 17 of them blood clot related. (5)Sterilization: Following a vasectomy, a man's testes will continue to produce millions of sperm each day. However, because the vasa deferetia have been severed for blocked, the sperm have no natural way to be released. If the tubes are blocked, the pressure of sperm being backed up often causes a blowout of the epididymis." (page 28-32) 

Thoughts from a few notable people throughout history:

Clement of Alexandria (b. 150 A.D.): "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

St. Augustine (b. 354 A.D.): "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility...Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning, they come together not joined in matrimony, but in seduction."

Martin Luther (b. 1483): "The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches...is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomistic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime...Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

Gandhi (b. 1869): "Man has sufficiently degraded women for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps ore of men than of women."