Thoughts on NFP

[Laudate_Dominum]

[b]Part I[/b]

NFP is merely abstinence whereas contraception involves directly sterilizing the sex act.
If a couple has a valid reason to forego having children, they ought to abstain from sex. But certainly sexual activity is good for marriage, the unitive dimension and all of that; recognizing the infertile period allows the couple to responsibly abstain without compromising the conjugal life.
And they have not kicked God out of the bedroom by directly sterilizing their sex.

Think of it this way, if a man and wife are on a city bus, even if they are very much amorous for each other at that time, they ought to abstain, and they do well to abstain because it would be abominable to engage in the marital embrace on a public bus. Similarly, if the couple knew that it was the woman's fertile period, but they had a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy, they would therefore have a reason to abstain. And there is no sin in not having sex, in fact there are countless circumstances in which not having sex is the right thing to do. If for the good of the family the spouses ought to abstain a few days out of the month, then that is what they ought to do. Just as when the couple is on the bus, or one of the spouses is ill or something, they have a reason, or even a moral imperative to abstain while such circumstances exist.

The very essence of NFP is categorically different from that of artificial contraception. Contraception lowers our sexuality because it divorces sex from procreation entirely, and leads to irresponsible sex on demand. NFP on the other hand requires true responsibility and respect for each other, as well as respect for fertility. It reverences sexual fecundity, it does not destroy it. Certainly the intention is a factor and thus it has a subjective dimension. The couple must discern when this is the right thing to do, because it is possible to abuse NFP and approach it with a contraceptive mentality. But even in this case it is categorically different from artificial contraception. The sin would be in the selfish intention, whereas artificial contraception is in itself intrinsically evil.

[b]Part II[/b]

The thing to remember is that intentionally separating the unitive and procreative dimensions is a moral evil. Contraceptive sex is analogous to sex in which the unitive dimension does not exist. It would be a perversion to have sex with someone outside the context of love and spousal union, only for the sake of some utilitarian intention to beget a child. Similarly the pursuit of the unitive without the procreative would be a perversion. In fact the true meaning of either dimension only exists so long as both dimensions coexist in their complimentarity. This does not mean that an infertile act of sex has less meaning than an act which results in conception. The meaning is more personalistic than that. What is required is openness to life, not necessarily a direct conscious intention to beget a child in a particular act. This openness is already implied in the wedding vows and the very nature of marriage, so as a Catholic contraceptive sex would devalue those vows in that this aspect of the wedding vows would become a lie. Contraception doesn't just distort an act of sex (since the language of body expresses total, life-giving love in the conjugal embrace, contraceptive sex is a lie told with the body since it contradicts part of the essential meaning of the act, namely the fruitfulness of sexual love), it also distorts the meaning of the marriage, making it a kind of facade of conjugal unity. A marriage without openness to life is much like a homosexual union. It is a contradiction of the meaning and nature of marriage.

NFP is not a sterilized sex act explicitly closed to life (as is artificial contraception), it is rather the absence of a sex act when it wouldn't be prudent or moral because of possible circumstances which would make sexual activity irresponsible at that time. As I said before, the licit practice of NFP reverences sexual fecundity (fruitfulness) it does not attack it and distort the nature and meaning of human sexuality.

[b]Part III[/b]

NFP has more in common with a scenario in which a couple ought to abstain because the wife just had an operation south of the border and the doctor said that sex would be unhealthy (not to mention painful and messy). Or even the case of a married couple being in a public place. They have a legitimate reason to abstain from sex given the circumstances. Similarly with NFP, if the couple has a serious reason why they should not have a child (perhaps a situation of grave poverty) and the woman was known to be fertile at that time, they ought to abstain from sex. If the woman is known to be infertile, why should they abstain? That's more the logic of NFP.

And the basic intention ought not be the rejection of the fecundity of sex, or the life-giving, fruitful dimension; this would rather be the unfortunate consequence of that grave circumstance which necessitates abstinence during the fertile time. Thus it is still possible to have sex whilst being open to life. Just as it is possible to abstain from sex but be open, or have a desire/intention to have sex, if only those grave circumstances weren't present which make it irresponsible, imprudent or possibly immoral.

The logic of artificial contraception on the other hand says that I want to have sex at any time, without openness to life, and without responsibility or respect for the nature and meaning of the act. It is an explicit rejection and distortion of the nature of sexuality.
Conjugal love and union is something quite essential to the human person and human dignity. It is also essential with regard to the family and the responsibilities of having children. The family is essential to society. I would say that contraception is a poison which strikes at the heart of humanity.


It’s like if there was a scenario in which a couple shouldn't procreate (even though they're faithful to their wedding vows and thus open to life) so they must abstain forever.. This would be sad. But fortunately this would also be very silly since a woman is only ovulating for a small fraction of the month. Thus, when the woman isn't ovulating, the circumstances are changed and the imperative to abstain doesn't exist.
That's it in a nutshell.

Contraception basically imposes its own false definition of what marriage and sexuality means. It is in essence a lie. I know this point isn't necessarily easy to see since we're so used to the culture of contraception. But it does in fact threaten the heart of marriage and family, and thus society. This is why many wise people have noted the connection between contraception, abortion, the destruction of the family, sexual immorality, divorce, etc.

[b]Part IV[/b]

[i]Studies conducted in Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Mauritius and the United States have demonstrated a 99% method effectiveness for the Sympto-Thermal and Temperature-Only Methods. These studies were conducted under a variety of conditions and demonstrate beyond any reasonable question of a doubt that this extremely high effectiveness can be achieved by ordinary couples who receive adequate instruction and follow the relatively simple rules of these methods.[/i]

The Los Angeles Study = 99% - 100% effectiveness
The Fairfield Study = 99% effectiveness
The Roetzer Studies = 99% - 100% effectiveness
The Doring Temperature-Only Study = 97% - 99% effectiveness
The Vincent Study = 99% effectiveness
World Health Organization study = 97.4% effectiveness
Billings Ovulation Method Studies:
- China (987 couples) = 100% effectiveness
- Indonesia (1,331 couples) = 99% effectiveness
- India (2,059 couples) = 99.15% effectiveness

[i]The 1984-1985 edition of Robert A. Hatcher's Contraceptive Technology. Table 10:2, "Efficacy rates: fertility awareness of birth control" lists figures for ten different systems of NFP from calendar-only to temperature-only, mucus-only, and sympto-thermal, and the effectiveness rates ranged from 70% (calendar-only) to 99.7% (Phase III only, temperature-only). [/i]

From Wikipedia:
[i]According to proponents, the Billings Ovulation Method has a 99% method effectiveness rate and 95% user effectiveness rate.
In one study2, a Creighton method achieved 99.5% method effectiveness but only 96.8% user effectiveness. In another study, a Creighton method had 17% of users getting pregnant, with a vast majority of these getting pregnant due to lack of correct use, so that only 0.14% of the actual users experienced a perfect-use pregnancy (Howard and Stanford, 1999).[/i]

[i]Research conducted by Ecochard, et al. (1998) found that:
FA (fertility awareness) users can achieve a 98.9% effectiveness rate under ideal conditions.
FA users who break one or more rules will average 93.5% effectiveness rate. By comparison, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports a user effectiveness rate of 92.0% for "the pill").[/i]