Archive for the ‘NFP’ Category

Natural Family Planning: The Right Kind of Course

Sunday, December 29th, 2013

I offer the following suggestions about the kind of NFP course that will assist the pastoral and teaching roles of the Church.  I stress the “right kind” of NFP course because an inadequate NFP course may lead to continued marital unchastity and a lack of appropriate generosity in having children.

1.  The right kind of NFP course must be education in Christian discipleship.  The course must place Jesus as the reason for fidelity to the Christian marriage covenant and all that it entails.  Mutual self-giving, fertility awareness, generosity, and chastity must all be taught in the light of Christian discipleship.  The right kind of NFP course must teach that Jesus is the reason for chastity within marriage as well as outside of marriage.  The Church cannot “sell” chaste natural family planning on purely natural grounds.  Yes, the natural methods are more than adequate as a form of birth control, but it takes more than fertility awareness to say NO to temptations to sexual sins during the fertile time.  It takes an open heart and a real spirit of Christian discipleship and self-control.

2.  The right kind of NFP course must be required as a normal part of preparation for marriage.  It is not sufficient to “encourage” attendance at an NFP course.  In the United States we have had 40 years of “encouragement” and the results are apparent.  About two-thirds of Catholic married couples were still obedient to Catholic teaching on birth control a few years prior to Humanae Vitae, but probably only two percent are currently faithful to that teaching today.

3. In the right kind of NFP course, the call to generosity in having children needs to be strongly affirmed.  Marriage is for family.  Having more than two children is not just “nice.”  In most cases it is obligatory for the practical survival of the Church.  Priest friends who went to Ars for the Year of the Priest also went to Paris, and one of them observed that the Arab women were carrying babies while the westernized women were carrying briefcases.  One of those priests recently closed his Catholic parish school, and he sent a letter to his parishioners and his bishop stating clearly that the practice of contraception, including sterilization, was the root cause of the school closure.  Parish-supported schools need sufficient numbers of tuition-paying students to have teachers.

4.  In the right kind of NFP course, the language of serious reason (seriis causis in H.V. 10 and gravia in H.V. 16) needs to be used.  In English, the language of justae causae easily becomes “just ’cuz,” that is, “just because” we feel like it.  Recognizing that the use of justae causae, probabiles rationes, and justae rationes in section 16 seem to soften the language of seriis causis, I suggest, and have used for many years, the term “sufficiently serious reason.”  I can witness that for many NFP-user couples, the most difficult part of using systematic NFP is making the decision about another child.  This problem does not exist or is greatly reduced among couples who decide to use ecological breastfeeding as their exclusive or primary means of spacing babies.

5.  In the right kind of NFP course, the anti-contraception teaching of Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and the Letter to Families needs to be strongly affirmed.  Please note that in his 1994 Letter to Families Pope John Paul II did not suggest that ordinary couples study his massive Theology of the Body.  Instead he wrote: “In the conjugal act, husband and wife are called to confirm in a responsible way the mutual gift of self which they have made to each other in the marriage covenant. (12.12)” My wife and I have been teaching in our NFP instruction for forty years that “Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant.”  People of good will can and do grasp that simple statement almost intuitively.

6.  In the right kind of NFP course, ecological breastfeeding needs to be explained and encouraged during the preparation for marriage as part of a required NFP course.   God Himself made woman in such a way that frequent suckling by her baby at her breasts postpones the return of fertility for more than a year in most cases.  This is not an old wives tale.  We have done the research and have published the results.  Mothers who practice the seven standards of ecological breastfeeding experience an average of 14.5 months of breastfeeding amenorrhea (the absence of menstruation).  That means that if they get pregnant during the first complete cycle, they will average about two years between childbirths.  Of course, an average is an average, and there is a range from very short to very long durations of amenorrhea.  Only seven percent experience less than six months of amenorrhea, and one-third were still in amenorrhea at 18 months.  About 70 percent experienced between 9 and 20 months of amenorrhea.  On the other hand, breastfeeding-in-general with its cultural components of pacifiers, bottles, babysitters, early introduction of other nourishment, and infrequent suckling episodes has almost no effect on the delay of fertility.  That is why we stress that the seven standards of ecological breastfeeding must be taught, as follows:
1. Breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of life.
2. Pacify your baby at your breasts.
3. Don’t use bottles and pacifiers.
4. Sleep with your baby for night feedings.
5. Sleep with your baby for a daily-nap feeding.
6. Nurse frequently day and night and avoid schedules.
7. Avoid any practice that restricts nursing or separates you from your baby.

These are simple-to-grasp maternal behaviors, but they can be difficult to practice in certain cultural and socio-economic conditions.  Nevertheless, they need to be taught so that the couples can make a more fully informed decision about the form of baby care they will give their children.

7.  In the right kind of NFP course, all the common signs of fertility and infertility need to be taught.  God Himself made woman in such a way that she experiences a discharge of cervical mucus and physical changes in the cervix before ovulation and an elevated temperature pattern after ovulation.  All of them are important.  Couples must be given adequate information about all the signs so that they can make an adequately informed choice.

8.  The right kind of NFP course must teach explicitly against the sins of marital unchastity to which couples will be tempted during times of abstinence.  I refer specifically to masturbation, whether mutual or solitary, and to marital sodomy whether by oral or anal copulation.  Please bear in mind that oral-genital copulation during the fertile time has been recommended by a secular book on natural birth control.  Please also be aware that according to a survey of U.S. east coast teenagers, almost half had engaged in that perversity.  Since some of those same people may find themselves in a diocesan-sponsored NFP course, it is truly imperative that such courses teach the sinfulness of such activities.  People have witnessed to us that before they took our instruction, they were using their own form of “NFP” with mutual or solitary masturbation during the fertile time.  One couple who took an NFP course taught under Catholic auspices but with no mention of marital chastity practiced mutual masturbation for eight years before they read our book and changed.  It is easy to teach against withdrawal and condoms on the practical grounds of the risk of pregnancy, but only spiritual motivation will help the couple to avoid the other sins of unchastity.  I have been informed by a well placed source that most of the teachers in most of the NFP programs in the United States do not feel comfortable talking about these sins of marital unchastity.  These sins are definitely not my favorite subject either, but we can teach what needs to be taught in only a few lines of text, as one can see from our manual listed below.

9.  The right kind of NFP course must affirm the role of the Magisterium in teaching the truth and the need for Catholics to practice the obedience of the Lord in accepting the teaching of the Church on love, marriage, sexuality and responsible parenthood.  In some quarters, obedience is downplayed as if all we need is fertility awareness or as if obedience doesn’t apply to adults.  On the other hand, while the Lord Jesus practiced all the virtues, the only virtue of Jesus that is specifically mentioned in Sacred Scripture, to the best of my knowledge, is obedience.  Further, he showed us that obedience is not only applicable to dependent children but also to mature adults even at the price of life itself.

10.  The right kind of NFP instruction needs an adequate text that incorporates all of the factors listed above.  Our manual, Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach, was written to fulfill these requirements.  (part of letter, October 19, 2010)

John F. Kippley

Natural Family Planning: Your Right to Know–A Universal Core for NFP Instruction

Sunday, October 27th, 2013

This is my plea for bishops, priests and informed laity to help ordinary couples know and live according to the teaching of Humanae Vitae.  I am not just politely suggesting; I am begging those with teaching authority in the Church to do two things relevant to Humanae Vitae.  1)  Require that every engaged couple take the right kind of NFP course as a normal part of preparation for marriage.  2)  Insist that every required course teach a universal core that includes all the common signs of fertility, ecological breastfeeding, Catholic morality regarding love, marriage and sexuality, and some additional things stated below.  I believe that the Church-related NFP course should be an exercise in evangelization, not just non-contraceptive birth control.

I accept the teaching of Jesus that being his disciples involves taking up our cross daily, and I believe this applies to his teaching about love, marriage and sexuality.  I also believe that his words in Luke 11:46 apply to those who have teaching responsibilities in the Church today.  “Woe to you also, scholars of the law, for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burden with one of your fingers.”  Thus I believe that bishops, priests, deacons and informed laity are called to do what they can — both to affirm the teaching and to provide the practical help to live it.

Couples have a right to know enough about the intellectual and practical help available so that they can make a well informed choice among the available options.

Engaged and married couples have a God-given right to learn—
All the common signs of fertility and infertility—mucus, temperature and cervix and how to use these in a cross-checking way for confidence and effectiveness.
Ecological breastfeeding as a form of natural baby spacing that maximizes all the health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby, maintains the milk supply, and delays the return of fertility for an average of 14 to 15 months.
The moral teaching of the Catholic Church relevant to love, marriage, sexuality, generosity in having children, and birth control.
This teaching in the context of God’s revelation and the marriage covenant.
The relative effectiveness of the different systems.

I believe that this right to learn and to know is indisputable.  After all, who can argue that anyone, Catholic or not, does not have a right to learn all of this?

The current situation, however, does not facilitate that right to learn the options.  Many of the NFP services offered by diocesan offices are variations on the mucus-only approach.
They teach only the external mucus sign.
They exclude teaching the internal observations of mucus and the cervix.
They exclude any teaching of the temperature sign.
They do not teach ecological breastfeeding.
They do not teach Catholic morality as a normal part of their instruction.

Among those who teach the cross-checking signs, no one except NFP International teaches ecological breastfeeding.  Others may teach about breastfeeding as a healthy practice, but they do not teach the seven standards of ecological breastfeeding, the only kind associated with extended breastfeeding infertility.  Withholding this information unfairly restricts the freedom of couples to choose.

Some dioceses try to compensate for this by offering more than one program.  That would be satisfactory if the couples knew enough to make an informed choice between the different programs, but they don’t.

Why does this happen?  I think it is a matter of salesmanship.  The mucus-only programs are run mostly by women who are nice people.  They have sold their product to the diocese and not infrequently have been hired as the diocesan NFP coordinator or director.  They are liked by their bosses who are happy to have someone taking on this task.  It is quite natural for them to think that their particular program is the best or at least completely adequate, and the idea of offering couples a real choice seems quite foreign.  After all, the leaders of their respective programs have said that the temperature sign, the internal observations, and the cervix sign aren’t needed.  It may be that the diocesan NFP coordinator has never experienced ecological breastfeeding.

All of this is understandable, and all of it makes for harmony in the chancery office, but is it fair?

What is needed is a minimum universal core in every NFP program that  is recognized in any way by the diocese.  It would respect the God-given rights of couples to know what God has made available:

All the common signs of fertility and infertility—mucus, temperature and cervix and how to use these in a cross-checking way for confidence and effectiveness.
Ecological breastfeeding as a form of natural baby spacing
The moral teaching of the Catholic Church relevant to love, marriage, sexuality, generosity in having children, and birth control.
This teaching in the context of God’s revelation and the marriage covenant.
The relative effectiveness of the different systems.

This can be done with relative ease.  There is no good reason why every program cannot teach Ecological Breastfeeding.

Adding the temperature sign to current mucus-only instruction will not be difficult to teach, but there may be resistance to change.  I am not saying that everyone has to chart temperatures.  No.  What is necessary is that couples are given sufficient information so that they know that the temperature sign can be used in a crosschecking way and has other significant advantages listed in my commentary on the temperature sign.  They should learn how to chart if they so desire.

Speaking of resistance to change, I understand that an American doctor-promoter of Calendar Rhythm went to his death sill believing that nothing more was needed.  I am grateful that in 1935 Father Wilhelm Hillebrand used the temperature-based research of Dr. T. H. van de Velde and insisted that an elevated temperature pattern was needed to cross-check the rhythm calculations, thus correcting the weakest part of the Calendar Rhythm system.  What motivated Father Hillebrand was not any sort of doctor-based dogma but simply wanting what would best help his parishioners.  I think he provides an example for our bishops and priests today.

As reported in my commentary on relative effectiveness, the US Bishops sponsored a scientific study by independent researchers that concluded, “Results of this study show the STM to be superior to the OM of NFP in terms of use-effectiveness.”  Then, almost all the couples who had been in the OM side of the study asked to be trained in the STM,  and they were trained.  It seems to me that the bishops should be making sure that couples today have that same opportunity.

I have no objection whatsoever to a couple choosing to use a single-sign system after they have been adequately taught how to use additional signs in a cross-checking way.  That is their right.  I insist only that they receive adequate instruction so that they are truly free to choose one way or the other.

We are all familiar with the saying of Jesus in John 8:32, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”  While it is certainly true that he was speaking about himself, that latter phrase can also be applied to many areas.

In urging a universal core, I am urging only that these words, “and the truth will make you free” apply to the science and art of natural family planning.  Couples deserve to know the full truth so that they can exercise their Christian freedom to choose, among morally valid alternatives, what they believe is best for them and their babies.

Near the top of this commentary, I quoted Luke 11:46:  “Woe to you also, scholars of the law, for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burden with one of your fingers.”

In providing the full truth, bishops and their collaborators certainly will be helping to lift the burden of living the truths affirmed by Humanae Vitae.  In fact, great numbers of couples who accept and live out the full truth that includes generosity and ecological breastfeeding will find that the whole package is much more of a blessing than a burden.

John F. Kippley
September 29, 2013

Natural Family Planning Greatly Reduces Breast Cancer

Sunday, October 20th, 2013

October is the month in which emphasis is placed on finding a cure for breast cancer, but not much is said about preventing it.  Natural Family Planning is a great way to reduce a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer.

To those who are informed, the most obvious way to reduce the risk of breast cancer is simple: Never take the Pill.  If a young woman takes the Pill for 4 years or more before her first full-term pregnancy, she increases her risk of breast cancer by 44%.   The World Health Organization has stated that the Pill is in a Group 1 (worst kind) carcinogen.  Every October Pink article ought to be warning against the Pill!

Breastfeeding, God’s own plan for spacing babies—especially via ecological breastfeeding, greatly reduces a mother’s risk for getting breast cancer.  The American Institute for Cancer Research states that breastfeeding, especially exclusive followed by extended breastfeeding, reduces the risk of maternal breast cancer. It also decreases the risk of the child getting cancer.  Why?  Because breastfeeding helps to keep children from becoming overweight during their early years.  If a child is overweight, he or she tends to be overweight as an adult.  “Adults with excess body fat are at increased risk of at least 6 different types of cancer, namely cancers of the pancreas, colorectum, breast (postmenopausal), endometrium, kidney and esophagus,” according to the American Institute for Cancer Research, “What You Should Know About Breastfeeding.”

Researchers of a 2002 study involving 147,000 women said that a major contributor to the high incidence of breast cancer in the USA is that mothers do not breastfeed or breastfeed for too short a time.  “If women in developed countries had 2.5 children, on average, but breastfed each child for six months longer than they currently do, about 25,000 breast cancers would be prevented each year, and if each child were breastfed for an additional twelve months, about 50,000 breast cancers might be prevented annually.”

What needs to be said by those involved with promoting breast cancer prevention is that taking the Pill and formula-feeding are high risk factors for breast cancer. Even when breast cancer has occurred in a family relative, the woman who breastfeeds reduces her chance of getting premenopausal breast cancer by 59%! One in 8 women will develop breast cancer and almost 40,000 die from this disease every year.

With ecological breastfeeding, the presence of amenorrhea is a factor for the decreased risk of ovarian cancer as well as breast cancer.

Natural Family Planning, whether it be systematic NFP to avoid the Pill or ecological breastfeeding, needs to be widely promoted for all its health benefits, especially during the breast-cancer prevention month of October.

For more information on breast cancer prevention, read “Breast Cancer: Risks and Prevention” by Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.

Sheila Kippley
The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor