FACTS group

[Guest guest]

Dear and Margurete,

Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident.

I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation.

More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only.

As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order

designed by God or acting against what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential.

The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance

can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71).

You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy.

By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage.

I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods.

I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above.

Blessings during this Holy Week,

Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor