To most people, this conversation at WDTPRS blog (by Fr. Z) is a bunch of churchy jibber-jab. But to me (and perhaps a few of you), it’s a fascinating read. You see, the Diocese of Phoenix just took their Marriage Preparation program to the next level—or perhaps the level after that, by increasing the amount of formation needed to complete their marriage preparation program and marrying in the Church in the diocese of Phoenix. There’s also a new component for marriage formation classes after the wedding.
Now this new policy has been in the Church and secular news for the last week or so, but I’ve not actually read Bishop Olmstead’s Letter, Covenant of Love, or the new policy. I’ll have more commentary on the policy, which includes mandatory NFP classes, once I get a better look at the documentary. However, until then, here’s a little preview of the 150+ comments over at Fr. Z’s blog:
Is natural family planning really something that should be stressed during marriage preparation? Does it really foster an openness toward procreation and a harmony between the unifying and procreating aspects of marital relations? I’m sorry, but there is no form of birth control (or “family planning”) that is in harmony with a natural-law concept of marriage: (1) you must have relations to prove/preserve the marriage bond and (2) said relations must always remain opened to the possibility (blessing) of children.
Natural family planning puts constraints upon the marriage act that intend to mitigate the possibility of pregnancy. Maybe all of this NFP is a curse upon the marriage preparation and formation in the Catholic Church in the U.S.A. There’s no getting around it: If you’re married you must… engage. If you’re… engaging… you must be open to children.–Choirmaster
***
…I have also taught NFP. This must be taught to engaged couples and if one of those two do not want to go to classes, I see this as an impediment to marriage. Strong feelings against NFP, unless the couple is open to not practicing any family planning, indicate a resistance to the teaching of the Church and mutual respect. I know of one annulment where the woman changed her mind after marriage and told her husband she really did not want children. If they had been in NFP classes before marriage, this may not have happened. She may have seen the beauty of children in the process…–Supertradmom
***
requires a full NFP course.
And I wonder how much of that NFP course covers truly grave scenerios for it’s use to avoid children? All of the couples I know outside of our Traditional circle understand NFP to mean avoiding children for any reason under the sun.
More emphesis should be placed on the sacrament of Marriage and less on the “how to avoid children” aspect. All of the people that actively use NFP to avoid children (that I know personally) are not happy couples. The male friends of these couples let on that their wife never wants to be intimate unless it is “that safe time” as dictated by a calendar. This seems to drive a wedge between people.
As Father Rocky said today on relavant radio, in marriage each spouse gives permission to the other to welcome children at any time. The ability comes from God, the openness from each other.
NFP as taught to many of my friends is nothing other than “Catholic Birth Control”. I sure am glad that our instruction was given by a priest on the proper way to welcome children into this world and not by some guy at the NFP pre-cana class telling us how to avoid children.–moon1234
on 
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
This is something I struggle with in our Diocese, where both my husband and I teach NFP. The range of couples we get is from properly catechized couples wanting to merely learn the science behind NFP to interfaith couples where one person knows Catholic teaching and the other doesn’t at all to people that have no intention of using NFP, are living together and are there because they’re forced to be. So while we’re trained in the science behind the method and that’s the primary goal of the course, I almost find the intro part of the first class, where we briefly go over a tiny bit of theology and the harms of hormonal birth control, to be much more important for those other couples who would otherwise not take the course, although THAT part should really be being covered by another part of their marriage preparation.
Anyway, we only have limited time with these couples and its hard to strike a balance with how much we should talk about theology when some people need it waayyyy more than others.
I’m really surprised about the comments I read. I thought you were going to post people freaking out because marriage prep was including any mention of NFP at all, let alone a required course. Where my husband and I did our pre-cana, we had to go and look for NFP info ourselves. The parish “team” didn’t even tell us there was a teaching on BC.
And, to be frank, I personally think having as many children as *possible* is not the same thing as responsible parenthood. NFP promotes responsible parenthood.
To be honest, I have a hard time understanding the providentialist Catholics who hold such disdain for using NFP to space children. Maybe I just don’t understand because my NFP class (CCL) did a great job of discussing Theology of the Body, oppenness to life, and using NFP for achieving pregnancy too. And personally all the NFP users I know are God fearing people who value human life and are trying to make responsible parenthood. Now all Catholics could use more instruction on generosity and being open to God’s plans for Marriage and the martial act, but I think the contraceptive mentality as a whole needs to be addressed.
From a personal perspective, it is also perplexing to me as a young married person with two young children. We have had children at a young age (while I was in grad school) and certainly not well established because we wanted children and wanted to really embrace the God’s plan for a family.. Unfortunately breastfeeding does not delay the return of my fertility so we would be averaging one child per year at this point in our lives if we didn’t have NFP to help space it. We want a large family, but are trying to be responsible with our finances and keep me at home with our children as much as possible. In addition, NFP has actually HELPED my reproductive health and will help us to have more children. I had a csection with my first and was told if I wanted a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) that I needed to wait at least 18 months to get pregnant to have a good chance and give the scar a chance to heal. Having multiple cesareans would have limited our reproductive future and endangered future pregnancies (say 4, 5 or 6 pregnancies down the road) so we opted to do our best to have a VBAC. My situation is one among many other legitimate reasons to space pregnancies and so I am grateful that NFP can help us do that in a way that still honors God’s design for intimacy and fertility.Those who judge the majority of NFP users as selfish truly lack compassion and the ability to understand other people’s situations. God sees all and knows people’s hearts.
I’m still a little unsure how I feel about NFp classes being required. How effective is it to teach couples that have no interest? However I do think that there are many couples who will the need to space children at some point in time or want help conceiving. Why not already know NFP and be able to use it? And as some pointed out…given that the majority are already contracepting or plan to contracept, it could be a first step for many to learn more about their faith and maybe undergo a renewal or change of heart.
Anyway their marriage prep seems a whole lot better than what we had!
*make responsible decisions on parenthood.
“All of the people that actively use NFP to avoid children (that I know personally) are not happy couples. The male friends of these couples let on that their wife never wants to be intimate unless it is “that safe time” as dictated by a calendar. This seems to drive a wedge between people”
So are this person’s male friends just have difficulty being continent and tempering their desires, or are the couples on different pages regarding whether or not they are ready for another child? EIther way the issue is not with NFP but with the individuals.
Don’t you think its true, NFP is neither intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, it depends on how its used. Just like the internet (I know I know, poor comparison). It has a lot of good stuff on it and people can use it to evangelize and do good and grow God’s kingdom….or it can be used in ways that are sinful and don’t glorify God (ok that was the understatement of the centuruy). It just depends on how its used.
Anyway I am anxious to hear your analysis of the subject Jessica, as someone “in the know” with promoting NFP on a diocesan level.
I agree with the intent behind some of the anti-NFP comments, but think that they’re a bit misguided and even callous. Prayerful and prudent chastity within marriage is in perfect harmony with natural law. It’s alluded to in Scripture, maintains all elements of “engaging,” and requires a constant dialogue between Christ and the married couple. The most common argument that I’m seeing here against NFP proceeds (in its simplest form) as follows: (1) NFP can be used to do X, (2) X is immoral, (3) Therefore, NFP is immoral. It is a fallacy of reasoning, however, to conclude that the tool is bad simply because the tool can be used for bad aims. Knowledge has always been a powerful tool for evil, but that is no reason not to seek its fruits.
The comment about frustrated husbands and wives using NFP is particularly troubling to me as a woman. NFP is cooperative (among spouses and with God). Taught alongside theology, it can be a very good thing. Knowledge and virtue together are powerfully good.
Larissa, I’m with you as well. As I said in the “Priest accuses” post, NFP *can* be abused and all too often NFP advocates in their eagerness to “sell” NFP position it as “just as effective as…” Also, in many NFP classes and in most parishes, there’s not enough guidance given to couples to discern just/ serious reasons for postponing pregnancy. However, it’s no reason to lambast NFP as contraception. You’re right–complete fallacy in logic. They operate completely differently.
You’re right that the issue with NFP is the individuals (and perhaps their instructor wasn’t a help), not the method itself.
Stay tuned for my response. I’m no guru, but I’ve seen a few things.
AgapeMarg, I’m totally on board with you about Providentialists/ Quiverfull. If that’s where the Lord leads a family–AWESOME. But to throw out the baby with bathwater by condemning NFP across the board–I just don’t understand.
The jury’s still out for me on mandatory NFP classes. I definitely feel there should be a strong theology/ TOB component with an introduction to Natural Family Planning, but frankly, there’s not enough research (all my understanding of this situation is anecdotal) on the effectiveness of mandatory NFP classes to know for sure. Part of me thinks it couldn’t hurt because I have seen people taking class in my former diocese because they were required by another diocese, and the class opened their minds. So…stay tuned for more thoughts on this.
I am the director of our diocesan nfp program in Charlotte, NC.
An introduction is required for engaged couples–it is about an hour long. It is my goal to show that people will choose to learn more about NFP following a good introduction, and they do not need to be forced. I have had excellent feedback from my introductions.
I start with a short video clip from the new NFP video from the Diocese or Rockville–ordering info. on the USCCB NFP website: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/video.shtml
I focus on science and effectiveness, both for avoiding and achieving (my background is in biology and nursing). I talk about the problems with contraceptives, mainly health toward the beginning of the talk.
I talk about the benefits of NFP, including health and marital (primarily increased communication leading to a lower divorce rate).
Finally, we talk briefly about the theology. I reference Humanae Vitae and the Theology of the Body. I make a comparison between artificial contraception and NFP by applying them to the terms Free, Total, Faithful, and Fruitful. I explain that contraception does not allow couples to be faithful to their wedding vows, whereas NFP does. For those that argue there is no difference between the two, this analogy seems to be very effective.
I provide them with an overview of Church teaching on the subject from the USCCB as follows:
1. In God’s plan, marriage is a permanent, faithful, exclusive relationship between husband and wife, directed toward mutual sanctification, unity, and parenthood.
2. Marriage is a sacrament, a sign of God’s presence in the world, and a source of grace for the couple.
3. The unifying factor between the spouses is conjugal love: that is, an interpersonal love between husband and wife that is mutually enriching, permanent, exclusive, faithful, total, and fruitful.
4. Decisions regarding parenthood are primarily the responsibility of the couple, based on a recognition that human life is a sacred gift from God and that the transmission of human life and the socialization and education of children are both the privilege and prerogative of the married couple. Decisions about parenthood should be made by the couple in a spirit of love and generosity, in light of their responsibilities to God, to themselves, to their children already born, and to society in accordance with a properly formed conscience.
5. Sexual intercourse is part of God’s plan to enable couples to intensify their mutual intimacy and to bring new life into the world. By God’s design there is an inseparable connection between the two meanings of the act of intercourse: the love-giving (unitive) and the life-giving (procreative).
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2000). Standards for Diocesan Natural Family Planning Ministry. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/standard.shtml
We talk about the good that children are to a marriage and how they should be viewed generously, but also about the importance of spacing and important reasons for delaying (even indefinitely) future pregnancy–and how, ultimately, this is the decision of the couple, made prayerfully.
People are more receptive to the theology after they know it is effective and healthy. You have to speak their language.
Thanks for providing us with this info. Jess.
Batrice Adcock, MSN, RN
cssnfp@charlottediocese.org
The value of a requirement to take a complete NFP course as part of preparation for marriage depends largely on the content of the course. I submit that the following components make up the right kind of course.
The right kind of instruction in natural family planning has to address the whole person. Within the Catholic Church, that means that first of all the entire body of Catholic teaching on love, marriage and sexuality needs to be presented in the context of Christian discipleship. The NFP course and the rest of the marriage preparation need to present Jesus as the reason for all teaching about love. He is love incarnate, so it is a gross omission to try to teach about love and marriage, including sexual love, without letting Jesus show us the way.
I believe that with this sort of course about 25% of couples will start their marriages with marital chastity. Further, the seeds that have been planted will continue to grow, and many of the contraceptors will experience for themselves the wasteland of secular sexuality, so I expect a gradual increase in the numbers of couples who repent and accept full Catholic teaching on love, marriage and sexuality. With help from the pulpit and an overall parish environment that promotes authentic Catholic spirituality and sexuality, I think that by their tenth anniversary two-thirds of couples who experienced the right kind of marriage preparation and NFP course will be fully practicing Catholics.
What is difficult for me to comprehend is that in January 2010 only seven dioceses are making any kind of NFP course a required part of preparation for marriage. Why does any priest or any bishop NOT want Catholic engaged and married couples to know everything I have described as the content of the right kind of NFP course? It’s all basic and easy to understand, and it can be taught modestly, even in mixed classes. I want to think that even those who think of themselves as “liberal” or “pro-choice” on birth control would want their people to know all of the above. After all, how can people make an informed choice without this information?
I have briefly described six subjects that need to be taught in an adequate NFP course.
1. Ecological breastfeeding as a form of NFP.
2. Cervical mucus
3. Cervical changes
4. Temperature changes
5. The marriage act as a renewal of the marriage covenant
6. Walking with Jesus
7. Obedience to Christ speaking through his Church
All of this can and should be taught very economically. I cannot find any good reason why any informed bishop or priest or family life director would not want engaged and married couples to know any of those seven aspects of chaste natural family planning.
The price of teaching chastity is very small. The cost of not teaching chastity is extremely high. Priestly unchastity has bankrupted several dioceses. Marital unchastity has undermined countless marriages, and it has played a major part the decline of vocations to the priesthood. It has led to a Catholic birth rate just at or below replacement level, setting the stage for our descendants to be living in a country dominated by Muslims whose parents and grandparents didn’t stop at two children.
And as for the objection about abstinence being somehow out of kilter with God’s plan, let’s remember the that doctrine of periodic abstinence dates back to Leviticus where abstinence was called for during menstruation plus another seven days. That plan brought the spouses together again at the most fertile time of the cycle, a wonderful way to build up the children of Abraham.
I teach the Creighton Model method of NFP in the DC area. My concern when Bishops start requiring NFP instruction for the engaged is that they think (to quote Dr. Kippley) that “the price of teaching chastity is very small”. It’s small if you use volunteers. My experience is that it’s your most faithful Catholics who will trust group instruction by volunteers, but your conventional folks, will sit and listen and then go on about their business. Yes, seeds will be planted, but This notion that NFP is free or inexpensive may be what is actually keeping it from spreading. I teach non-Catholics who never would have considered learning in a group setting taught by volunteers. Folks have told me that they never would have discussed the things we have in a group setting. Individual instruction means professional. That doesn’t mean it’s not a ministry (e.g. DREs etc).
I agree with Michaela that professionalism seems to be one of the most important aspects of teaching NFP and it being well received. As a MSN prepared nurse, trained as an instructor in the Marquette Method, and working for Catholic Social Services, people are drawn to the professional service that I offer. But, I also get more participation because my classes are free (including educational materials). My intros. and my class series are free. All follow-up is free. While I promote and advertise for other classes offered in the diocese that are not free (CCL, Chreighton, etc.), all of my services are free. Again, this only seems to increase my class attendance, especially in this “tough economic time”. I have attendance from all of the various socio-economic groups.
Given that professionalism is important, I also am very relaxed in my classes. People tell me that they really like my “laid back” nature. I think I show people that this is not too complicated and that it can be readily incorporated. A relaxed environment encourages good discussion. People are comfortable asking important questions.
I convey as well that this is a ministry and passion for me. They need to see that it is not just a job and that they can rely on me–that it is my interest to help them–to help themselves!
Michaela, interesting point about the low cost of NFP contributing to its lack of spreading. Is NFP required in your Archdiocese? I see what you’re saying about volunteers vs. “professionals.” I’m tempted to say that’s a false dichotomy because I could name several non-Creighton instructors who are very professional and successful, and even have a large percentage of non-Catholic or non-religious couples.
I’m a total Creighton fan, and have the utmost admiration for the training process and the approach to instruction, which is why it continues to grow. However, I don’t think NFP as free is what’s keeping it from spreading–it’s a combination of spiritual lethargy, lack of information, and lack of good promotion, among other reasons. NFP as free or volunteer-run does have its drawbacks, but I wouldn’t place it among the top 7 reasons for slow NFP growth.
John, I agree with you that the value of the NFP requirement depends heavily on the content of the course. I would also add that the formation of the teachers is vital–I can’t tell you how many times I’ve observed painfully or heard about misleading, incomplete, or even completely incorrect information in an NFP class.
I disagree that all 7 elements on your list are required. Obviously your tremendous experience as sympto-thermal teacher and model founder weigh heavily in your requirements, but the Ovulation methods do a fantastic job with NFP instruction, though they may be lacking #3 & #4, and may go about #1 differently.
To play the devil’s advocate about why Bishops don’t require NFP….well, some of them may be flat out cowards, and some might have more legitimate pastoral reasons, but the logistics of requiring NFP are harder to work out than one would think. We had this same discussion in Madison. How can we make this happen? The answer is that we wanted to, but it had to be a several year process before fully integrating the requirement. There has to be prepatory catechesis for the clergy and lay leaders, massive recruitment efforts, time for training the instructors, and creating an infrastructure–however simple–to promote, register, teach, follow up, and manage the quality of the NFP instruction. So, I’m not saying NFP shouldn’t be required, but the task is a difficult one that requires excellent formation, a supportive bishop, spiritual and personal tenacity, and material resources that aren’t at the ready in most dioceses. It’s a big undertaking, and considering that only 6 or 7 dioceses out of 194 (last time I checked) have a full time NFP Coordinator, it’ll be a while before more dioceses require NFP.
Back to my comment about the cost of NFP – while Batrice is not charging couples for her instruction, someone is paying her. She is employed by Catholic Social Services. The couples don’t have to pay because the Church is subsidizing their tuition. I guess I was trying to say that if the bishops are going to require NFP instruction for engaged couples, they shouldn’t be thinking that they can rely totally on volunteer teachers. People like Batrice need to be employed. I think that this reliance on volunteers is what has kept NFP confined to the most committed Catholics who don’t need so much reassurance.
If the Church is going to ask ordinary couples to step away from their contraceptive crutches, she should be prepared to meet the challenge with the best that Catholic healthcare has to offer. The USCCB directives for healthcare providers say that Catholic hospitals should be offering NFP instruction for their employees and patients. Most Catholic hospitals don’t even employ one nfp-only OB/GYN, much less an NFP teacher. While the bishops contemplate requiring NFP instruction, they should also be contemplating requiring the Catholic hospitals in their areas to employ NFP teachers and NFP-only OB/GYNs. Catholics need to get the message from several directions.
Lay people are being paid throughout the Church to perform ministries. If NFP is to spread, it must be trusted, and I believe, the more paid teachers, the better. Why not? Also, it does help with “buy-in” to have couples pay something. I agree with Batrice about creating a relaxed atmosphere when teaching groups. But I’ve also experienced anger from couples who thought discussing private issue in public violated their. Also, issues of modesty come up among more traditional people.
Anyway, bravo for those courageous bishops who are requiring NFP instruction!