STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]My only question was about Catholic doctrine and how NFP was different from using condoms, since neither is chemical or have secondary abortive properties, outside of the abortions your body is naturally likely to have, and both prevent pregnancy. Why is NFP "more Godly"? And the answer seems to be "it feels better"</span>
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]
Condoms create a physical barrier between the spouses, obviously doing something to prevent openness to life. According to the Catholic Church, God made sex to be <em>open</em> to life. NFP is different because instead of <em>doing</em> something to prevent conception, people who use it simply <em>don't</em> do something- they don't have sex. Therefore, whenever an NFP-using couple has sex, they are technically "open" to life, since they are doing nothing to prevent it. There is nothing wrong with <em><strong>not</strong></em> having sex. Spouses can of course choose when to and when not to. At the times when they do have sex - they are not doing anything (using a condom, taking BC,) to prevent conception. Therefore, they are technically "open to life." God is the one who created our bodies to have fertile and infertile times, and he also gave us the intellect to figure out that we can make use of this knowledge. <div>
</div><div>I think everyone would agree it would be horrible for a husband to have sex with his wife while she were throwing up and horribly sick; in the same way, couples using NFP (for religious reasons) can prayerfully discern whether they have serious reasons to avoid having sex, which might result in getting pregnant at that time. Just like how if one of the couple were really sick - there is nothing <em>wrong</em> with <em>not</em> having sex. That's how NFP is very different than condoms. <div>
</div><div>By it's very nature, using NFP is much more "sacrificial" than any form of condoms or BC, b/c couples tend to discern much more seriously their reasons for avoiding having kids. It's a lot easier to pop a pill or put on a condom and have sex whenever you want, than it is to abstain for two weeks every month. So, even as a result of that, couples using NFP tend to be much more "open" to life. <img style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;" src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></div></div>

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : I get why religions want their follower to be "open to life" and to make more little followers. But aside from that, why is having children necessarily good? From an ecological standpoint, the world is overpopulated, and collapsing under the pressures of the current human population, so I would say not having children is more of a sacrifice, since you are sacrificing your own lineage to make room for all the other people's offspring. Think of all the destruction we cause to other forms of life, why are the lives of gods' other creatures less valuable? I am a biologist, I love life, and I hate to see it trampled by too many people.</span>
Posted by Liatris2010[/QUOTE]<div>actually, that's really debatable</div><div>"The nation's falling fertility rate is the root of many of our problems. And it's only getting worse."</div><div><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html</a>

</div>

Calypso1977 · February 2013

i consider myself relatively green, and when taking that quiz, i learned we'd need 5.82 earths!

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]. I just hate the assumption that wanting kids is good and not wanting kids is bad, and <strong>it is the one you are making</strong>. </span>
Posted by Liatris2010[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? Since when can you read my mind? I simply tried to explain the position of the Catholic Church about how using condoms is different than using NFP, and then I provided an article which argued that having kids is good economically, to give a different perspective to the one which you were presenting. I never actually stated my opinion...<div>
</div><div>ETA: you were the one who ASKED why having children was necessarily good, and I simply provided one reason! (the economic one.)</div>

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]See, I took it as sacrificial meaning because it took more work to maintain and involved abstinence. I thought it was directly in response to my question about the logic behind the Church's rules. Not as a blanket statement meant for everyone.</span>
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I don't know how anyone can think that it's NOT a sacrifice to deliberately abstain from sex for 2-or-so weeks. (The irony of what Liatris seems to be offended by is that the people who are abstaining are those who are trying to NOT get pregnant, and therefore contribute to "overpopulation" of the world!)<div>
</div><div>And just to explicitly say, yes, the official Catholic position is that kids are "good," and so there should be "grave reason" to avoid having them. Sorry if that attitude offends you or you disagree with it. (Another irony being, the few Catholic families I know who have 6+ kids tend to live on a similar amount of resources as your typical well-off suburban American family with 2 or less kids. They large families I know don't usually have a huge house, they probably homeschool and so save a lot of resources like driving by doing that, since they're not particularly well-off and have to save their money simply to feed the kids, they'll be frugal with going on fancy vacations or eating fancy food, etc.)</div>

QueerFemme · February 2013

<div align="left">In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:f967ef33-1d6b-4280-bf33-de0d1f8af450">Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation:In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation:In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : It's the sacrament, actually.nbsp;Posted by TXKristanActually, it's not the sacrament.nbsp; It's the legal right to be married.nbsp; If the legal part didn't matter to the church, they wouldn't require you to show your LEGAL marriage license. They would just have your ceremony and you would be married under god's laws.nbsp; So, what you are actually saying, isnbsp;in order for you to even BE married in the church's eyes, you have to be licensed to be married under the law.nbsp; And I second Stage's post.nbsp; You would really give up the right to be legally married if the church said so?Ok, so, you would be giving up your right to make any medical decisions on your husband's behalf as Stage mentioned as well as a sampling of just a few of the following rights:medical benefitsinheritance rightsimmigration rights God bless the fact thatnbsp;you fell innbsp;love with someone who is a citizen of the same country as youAdoption rightsParental rights hopefully, you'll never get divorced, but if you did, at least you would still have legal visitation/custody to your children!Social security/death benefitsmilitary benefitslegal protection against discrimination rights under the FMLA to take care of a sick or dying spousethe right to not be compelled to. testify against your spouse in court. Posted by cmgilpin <strong>Minor point but I don't think parental rights are dependant on marriage. If you can prove you're biologically a child's parent and file for rights you get them. You could still get visitation and what not without any marital rights.
</strong>Posted by ridedatbike[/QUOTE]

Parental rights are determined by either marriage or biology. If you adopt a child with your spouse, you both have parental rights. If you give birth to a child, you can have your spouse legally adopt that child (assuming there is no other male in the picture that is claiming parental rights.). Most states don't allow same sex, second parent adoption. And most states don't allow gay & lesbian couples to adopt. ONE of the parents can adopt a child, so legally, only one is the parent. If that couple breaks up, the non-legal parent has no rights or remedies in courts.

</div>

Resa77 · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:c163ca5b-2969-4d99-be5c-19d121e75bc6">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : I took this to mean that being open to life is good, and that there should be some soft of big-deal reason for not wanting kids. If you need a reason for not wanting children, but no reason for wanting them, then to me the assumption is wanting kids is good or correct, not wanting kids is somehow bad or incorrect, unless you have a serious reason why they would be a hardship. If I conflated your position and the Church's and offended you, I am sorry. As for the WSJ article, yes that is a reason, just not one that addressed my concern, which is why I dismissed it. I don't think people need to justify their desire to have kids, but I also don't think people should have to justify their desire to remain childless.
Posted by Liatris2010[/QUOTE]

Lalaith is doing a great job explaining things, but I just wanted to add my own response to your question. Catholics believe that children are the purpose of marriage because they are the physical embodiment of the love between spouses. They are the natural result of marital love. We also believe that the trinity is somewhat mirrored in the marital relationship...the love between God the Father and God the Son is personified in the Holy Spirit...their love is a whole new person! Likewise, in marriage, the love between husband in wife results in a whole new person, their child. I'm not expecting that by saying this you're going to be like "oh, that's SO obvious....I'm totally changing my mind on everything I previously believed!" I just hope that it helps you to kind of "get" where Catholics are coming from. It's actually a very consistent, thought-out theology when it comes to marriage, sex, contraception, procreation, and all that jazz, though I understand that it's very opposite of how our society views things.

QueerFemme · February 2013

Here's my question. If you abstain from sex when you are fertile, how do you KNOW you aren't supposed to be having sex then, so you can get in line with "God's plan" for you? It you are a true believer, and you believe that god makes the decisions for when you are going to or should have babies, then isn't it safe to assume that god wouldn't bless you with a baby when it wasn't the "right" time.

Aren't you sort of messing with his plan for you by abstaining from sex?

ridedatbike · February 2013

In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation:[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation:Minor point but I don't think parental rights are dependant on marriage. If you can prove you're biologically a child's parent and file for rights you get them. You could still get visitation and what not without any marital rights. Posted by ridedatbike

Yeah, which pretty much excludes cases of adoptions, gay couples who use AI, and unmarried straight couples who use a donor for sperm or donor eggs and surrogacy due to fertility issues of one partner or another. But, hey, those aren't REALLY parents anyway, right? Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]

Well not what I meant but in reguards to giving up marital rights vs religious rights. If a biological parent could give those up and very much parental rights. But how does the birth certificate work with same sex couples? I wouldn't know but I would assume if the child's BC had bothsame sex couples on it it would function the same as a heterocouples rights because those do depend on the BC. Bow if you're not on a BC that's where you may have a problem.

QueerFemme · February 2013

<div align="left">In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:2231e7cc-0e96-4d02-bd5b-f46e552f6e2b">Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation: Well not what I meant but in reguards to giving up marital rights vs religious rights. If a biological parent could give those up and very much parental rights. <strong>But how does the birth certificate work with same sex couples?</strong> I wouldn't know but I would assume if the child's BC had bothsame sex couples on it it would function the same as a heterocouples rights because those do depend on the BC. Bow if you're not on a BC that's where you may have a problem.
Posted by ridedatbike[/QUOTE]

In most states, for a female same sex couple, only the parent giving BIRTH is listed on the birth certificate and the "father" is left blank.   In a handful of states, the non-birth parent can petition the court for adoption, but most states do not allow a same sex, second parent adoption. So, legally, the non-birth parent is never legally connected to the child.

For male couples who used a surrogate, he would be listed as the bio-father, and the mother would be the surrogate mother, and she would have to sign to release her parental rights to the child.  And again, if the couple had a child via adoption, again, usually only one person can apply for adoption, so the other partner again, would have no legal attachment to the child.

In the event of a death of the bio parent, custody of the child doesn't automatically go to the other parent (even if they had been raising the child their whole life). Family members can (and often do) petition to get custody of the child... and they often win. So, the child's parent, the one who has been raising it, may lose access or custody or even visitation to that child.

ETA:   that's what I meant by parental rights. In the event of a death of a parent in a heterosexual couple/marriage, even if child was conceived through artificial insemination or other methods, both parties are normally listed on the birth certificate. So, custody almost always automatically reverts to the other parent. In the event of a death in a same sex couple, it's usually a huge long court battle.

Also, when a heterosexual couple is married, even if the father, for example, isn't the bio-father, in the event of a divorce, he can still petition the court for visitation and even custody at times. The courts don't typically recognize a same sex, non-bio parent, and typically they will have no legal standing to request visitation or custody of a child.</div>

ridedatbike · February 2013

In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation:[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation:In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation: Well not what I meant but in reguards to giving up marital rights vs religious rights. If a biological parent could give those up and very much parental rights. But how does the birth certificate work with same sex couples? I wouldn't know but I would assume if the child's BC had bothsame sex couples on it it would function the same as a heterocouples rights because those do depend on the BC. Bow if you're not on a BC that's where you may have a problem.Posted by ridedatbikeIn most states, for a female same sex couple, only the parent giving BIRTH is listed on the birth certificate and the "father" is left blank.nbsp;nbsp; In a handful of states, the nonbirth parent can petition the court for adoption, but most states do not allow a same sex, second parent adoption. So, legally, the nonbirth parent is never legally connected to the child.For male couples who used a surrogate, he would be listed as the biofather, and the mother wouldnbsp;be the surrogatenbsp;mother, and she would have to sign to release her parental rights to the child.nbsp;nbsp;And again, if the couplenbsp;had a child via adoption, again, usually only one person can apply for adoption, so the other partner again, would have no legal attachment to the child.In the eventnbsp;of anbsp;death of the bio parent, custody of the child doesn't automatically go to the other parent even if they had been raising the child their whole life.nbsp; Family members can and often do petition to get custody of the child... and they often win.nbsp; So, the child's parent, the one who has been raising it, may.lose access or custody or even. visitation to that child. Posted by. cmgilpin[/QUOTE]

That's pretty lame but my point does still stand parental rights determine on a BC not a marriage certificate so in the events that a couple choose between religion and law parental rights would be unrelated.

QueerFemme · February 2013

<div align="left">In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:744090a7-41ef-4dab-b4ed-6f297efff825">Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation: That's pretty lame but my point does still stand parental rights determine on a BC not a marriage certificate so in the events that a couple choose between religion and law parental rights would be unrelated.
Posted by ridedatbike[/QUOTE]

you replied while I was adding something to my previous post clarifying "parental rights". So, yeah, marriage and recognition of a same sex partner does matter.</div>

QueerFemme · February 2013

<div align="left">In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:165d75e6-7907-4c1e-8424-89254e56d4d9">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : I *think*, and hopefully one of the Catholic ladies will come and respond, that it is because sex and reproduction should not be separated, that they are considered a joint act, and separating them is against the rules. So abstaining from sex is fine, but having sex in a way that prevents conception is not, because sex is for making babies, not just for fun (I'm sure there is a chruchier way to put that). I see what you are saying, but I think this particular thing isn't about god's plan for you so much as not separating sex and conception.
Posted by Liatris2010[/QUOTE]

It still makes me wonder. If you abstain from sex when you are fertile, and you are fertile because god made you so, and you PURPOSEFULLY let that egg go unfertilized, you are messing with the plan. What if THAT egg was the one that was SUPPOSED to be fertilized? It seems to me, if someone has that much faith that god has the plan, they would have sex to express their love without regard for when they are fertile and when they aren't. They would just express their love and let god decide if the time was right according to his plan.
</div>

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : It still makes me wonder. If you abstain from sex when you are fertile, and you are fertile because god made you so, and you PURPOSEFULLY let that egg go unfertilized, you are messing with the plan. What if THAT egg was the one that was SUPPOSED to be fertilized? It seems to me, if someone has that much faith that god has the plan, they would have sex to express their love without regard for when they are fertile and when they aren't. They would just express their love and let god decide if the time was right according to his plan.</span>
Posted by cmgilpin[/QUOTE]<div>Kristan gave a good answer to that, but I'll also add... God is bigger than that. His "plan" gets modified all the time when people do dumb things that aren't in line with His Will. But that's why the prayer/discernment part is so important for Catholics - Catholics who are using NFP to avoid getting pregnant *are* praying and trusting that by making the decision to abstain from sex for a time, they actually ARE doing God's will. And (just like any method of ABC,) sometimes there are "surprises," and so if you have been following the mentality of a Catholic that I have laid out, I hope that you can also see that this "surprise" will be viewed much more differently than someone who is 100% saying "no" to children by using BC - The "surprise" of someone prayerfully using NFP <strong>will</strong> be like, "wow, I guess God really really really wanted us to have this baby..."</div><div>
</div><div>Also, there are lots of other ways to "express love" without having sex. One of the great things (IMHO) about NFP is it forces the couple during those times of abstinence to work on other ways of showing affection and growing in love for each other than just sex. (Not saying people who don't use NFP never do that, just trying to show how the times of abstinence b/c of NFP provides an obvious time to do that.)</div><div>
</div><div>Finally, also, there are Catholics (and some other kinds of Christians) who don't "believe in" NFP, due to the reasons you are seeing, and do believe that you should always have the attitude of "whatever God wants" and completely leave it up to God. But I think the analogy of "don't go stand in the middle of a highway b/c you think God will take care of you" is good. For the same way that God gave us the intellect to know we should look both ways before crossing the street, we can also use our intellect to think "I shouldn't have sex right now b/c a baby would be a very unwise/unhealthy etc thing to have in 9 months."

</div>

QueerFemme · February 2013

<div align="left">In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:efca2a46-e8a0-4f6e-a5e2-3a3610e94d2d">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : Out of honest curiousity, what is your faith affiliation? God's will is a tricky thing. I know I have probably missed opportunities because I wasn't open to where God was leading me, or I wasn't paying attention. The thing about God and His will is that He knows us and wants what is best for us. Here's a story for me, personally, that helps me draw a parallel between God's will and what we do. My dad & I were about to start a weekend road trip to Austin. D<strong>ad was going to drive and told me to pick out a CD (this was before iPods). I opened my CD case and found Paul Simon's "Graceland". I got excited (this CD reminds me of my childhood) and put it in. Dad got in the car and heard the opening notes of the first song. He looked at me, smiled, and said "I knew you were going to put that CD in. This morning when we agreed to ride together I knew you were going to choose Paul Simon for our trip." </strong>Hope that kinda helps.
Posted by TXKristan[/QUOTE]

You asked the question, so I'm going to answer it. My personal affiliation is I think most religion is bogus and BS.    I think religion is a tool to control people and disempower them.   I also think that most religion is corrupt and is a business, just like Microsoft, but with followers instead of customers.

That does not mean I don't think there is a higher power, but I don't think the higher power is god, Jesus or any other "being".   I think it's the air, the earth, the water, other people, etc. I think the universe is the higher power and we feed off its energy.

So, given that, I don't believe in rules or faith that someone else has a plan for me. I make my own plan, and sometimes, the universe will put a person or something in my life, and my original plan doesn't necessarily work out the way I thought I wanted it to. But, I don't believe that is god or some other being or a book that was written a very very long time ago. That book was written by someone else, translating what they think they remember Jesus saying, etc.

People pick & choose what they want to believe in from the bible.   That is incredibly hypocritical to me.

To the bolded part. So, you think it was god's plan for you to pick that CD because god told your dad you were going to pick it?   To me, it makes perfect sense. The CD reminds you of your childhood, you listened to it with your dad when you were a kid. So, when you opened up your CD case for a trip with your DAD, it would make sense that you would pick that. And he is about to embark on a road trip with you, his daughter, and told you to pick a CD, it would make sense that he was also reminded of the music of your childhood.
</div>

Simply Fated · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:372d8feb-68d2-4eb0-ad32-fa90f297da47">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]the rhythm method assumes all cycles are 28 days long, which we all know is not the case. that is why the rhythom method is a terrible and ineffective method because it assumes a cycle length adn therefore assumes ovulation on a certain date based on 28 days. thats why it has a high failure rate. NFP loosely refers to not using artificial BC. it is practiced in many forms (creighton, sympto-thermal, billings, etc.). all rely on methods for tracking that do not assume a 28 day cycle and ovulation on the same day every month. as with ANY method of BC its success/failure rate is only as good/bad as the user. if you are sloppy and forget to track you might get pregnant when you dont want to, just as if you are sloppy and forget your pill or are lazy and dont put on a condom.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]
The default is 28 days, but you're supposed to adjust your tracking based on your own, personal menstrual cycle. This is why you track your period. You're also supposed to pay attention to things like body temperature and vaginal discharge, which <em>includes</em> mucus.

Rhythm method is a form of NFP.
It's not good enough for the Roman Catholic Church, which is fine, but secularly, technically and literally, it's a form of NFP.

Calypso1977 · February 2013

The default is 28 days, but you're supposed to adjust your tracking based on your own, personal menstrual cycle. This is why you track your period. You're also supposed to pay attention to things like body temperature and vaginal discharge, which includes mucus.

what you explain here is sympto-thermal method except there is no default of 28 days. sympto thermal doenst make any assumptions of cycle length.

i really dont see how rhythm method can even be considered NFP because its completely lacking in the P (planning) department and as such is very, very unreliable. sympto thermal however is extremely reliable when practiced correctly (again, like any method of BC it must be used correctly).

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]Rhythm method is a form of NFP. It's not good enough for the Roman Catholic Church, which is fine, but secularly, technically and literally, it's a form of NFP.</span>
Posted by Simply Fated[/QUOTE]
"The Catholic Church" has no problem with the rythm method. It's just very unreliable, and gives all other forms of NFP a bad name. Couples can use whatever method they want to to determine when to have, or not have, sex. However, I have never heard of "The Rhythm Method" described in the way you describe it. When you add in mucus and temp, then it's no longer "just" rhythm (which is what makes it "The Rhythm Method,") and it becomes some form of sympto-thermal.<div>
</div><div>I'm curious... do you yourself do this "form" of NFP? If not, from where are you getting your information about how it works? (I'm also curious b/c I am wondering why you are so adamant about whether it "is" or "isn't" NFP.)</div>

emilykathleen511 · February 2013

Kristan-

What if the new Pope came out and decided that ABC and condoms are now okay for Catholics? Your whole viewpoint would change with the snap of your fingers? I'm seriously curious.

Simply Fated · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:e4bd19b4-e73d-4d64-8b20-16e802ad0285">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]The default is 28 days, but you're supposed to adjust your tracking based on your own, personal menstrual cycle. This is why you track your period. You're also supposed to pay attention to things like body temperature and vaginal discharge, which includes mucus. <strong>what you explain here is sympto-thermal method except there is no default of 28 days. </strong>sympto thermal doenst make any assumptions of cycle length. i really dont see how rhythm method can even be considered NFP because its completely lacking in the P (planning) department and as such is very, very unreliable. sympto thermal however is extremely reliable when practiced correctly (again, like any method of BC it must be used correctly).
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]
No, that's not what I'm explaining. What I said was, body temperature is one of the things it is suggested you check for when using the rhythm method that's why I mentioned body temperature. But I'm explaining the rhythm method, not the Basal method.
It's not like you can use one portion of one method but OMG dont' you dare use a portion of another method.

An unreliable method is still a method.

It is a NFP method. It's the same thing as checking for mucus and temperature, but you<em> </em> follow the menstrual cycle.
You can pretend it's not a NFP method, but it is. You can say it's not NFP method, but it is.
The more you say it's not a NFP method, doesn't make you right.

Simply Fated · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:f6efde1a-5f46-49e4-ae4a-363a680023aa">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]"The Catholic Church" has no problem with the rythm method. It's just very unreliable, and gives all other forms of NFP a bad name. Couples can use whatever method they want to to determine when to have, or not have, sex. However, I have never heard of "The Rhythm Method" described in the way you describe it. When you add in mucus and temp, then it's no longer "just" rhythm (which is what makes it "The Rhythm Method,") and it becomes some form of sympto-thermal. I'm curious... do you yourself do this "form" of NFP? If not, from where are you getting your information about how it works? (I'm also curious b/c I am wondering why you are so adamant about whether it "is" or "isn't" NFP.)
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]
I wasn't admanant about it until Calypso said it wasn't. It is. It's like she's arguing the grass is actually blue just because it's called Kentucky bluegrass. It's bizarre behavior.

The Catholic Church has said that calling the rhythm method a form of nfp isn't accurate because it's unrelaible. I disagree with that stance. Just because a method is unreliable, doesn't mean it ceases to be a method.

A good gynocologist would never just say, "here, wear this condom and you should be good to go." They also should suggest using other forms of birth control, as well. Such as also using the pill or nuvo ring or what ever. That doesn't mean you have to, it's just a suggestion.
With the rhythm method, it's the same way. Because most women are unpredictable with their cycle, it's suggested to be aware of your body and check for things like spotting, discharge, body temperature, etc. That's just common sense. I said, specifically, it's "suggested," not "mandatory" as part of the method.

I'm on the birth control pill. I hate that it's called that because I don't take it to control birth, I take it to control my cramps and my cycle. Thanks to it's title, politicians want to control it and Rush Limbaugh suggests I videotape myself having sex so he can watch.

However, because I spent so a good portion of my life literally living in fear of my period, I am hyper aware of my body. I notice temperature drops and raises, That doesn't mean I participate in the Basal method.

As far as my where I'm getting my information goes: School, my doctor, gynocologists, other doctors (I've had a few speak to me), books, friends, family, internet, common sense...

Calypso1977 · February 2013

i never said the Rhythm Method wasnt a method, but its not considered a mainstream method of NFP. no one, not even teh Catholic church, teaches it because it doesnt work.

but its always comical (sad?) when people assume NFP is the Rhythm Method or that it is the only form ABC free family planning.

What if the new Pope came out and decided that ABC and condoms are now okay for Catholics?

this can never happen.

lalaith50 · February 2013

<span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]The Catholic Church has said that calling the rhythm method a form of nfp isn't accurate because it's unrelaible. I disagree with that stance.</span>
Posted by Simply Fated[/QUOTE]<div>Actually, the Catholic Church has never said that, I've definitely never said that, and I'm pretty sure that's not even what Calypso said.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]As far as my where I'm getting my information goes: School, my doctor, gynocologists, other doctors (I've had a few speak to me), books, friends, family, internet, common sense...</span>
Posted by Simply Fated[/QUOTE]
I'm bringing this up because, honestly, you're coming across as very mis-informed. For someone who doesn't even use NFP, you're being pretty opinionated about the exact terminology of it. </div><div>
</div><div>I (and also I believe Calypso) strongly object to your use of the term "rhythm method" for what you are describing both because if it's ONLY based on rhythm, then it's really not helpful to any sort of NFP discussion, b/c methods based ONLY on rhythm are going to be more ineffective b/c everyone will have an "unusual" cycle at some point, and that is where someone who is relying ONLY on rhythm will likely get pregnant, and give the rest of the NFP methods a bad name. Also, we object to your use of the term "rhythm method" b/c what you are actually describing (use of calendar days PLUS mucus and temp) IS NOT THE RHYTHM METHOD. Like both Calypso and I have said, when you use those other scientific elements, it becomes some form of a sympto-thermal method. </div><div>
</div><div>I mean, I concede <em><strong>you</strong></em> can call it whatever you want, (and I really don't care what you call it, or whether you think it's NFP or not,) but like I said, your insistence on calling what you are describing "the rhythm method" is just making you sound uninformed, so what I am doing right now is simply trying to clear this up for anyone else who is reading along, since there are SO many misconceptions already about NFP!</div>

Simply Fated · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:290dc2eb-57ed-4aad-bb2c-4ba96b927be1">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]<strong>i never said the Rhythm Method wasnt a method,</strong> but its not considered a mainstream method of NFP. <strong>no one, not even teh Catholic church, teaches it because it doesnt work.</strong> but <strong>its always comical (sad?) when people assume NFP is the Rhythm Method</strong> or <strong>that it is the only form ABC free family planning</strong>. What if the new Pope came out and decided that ABC and condoms are now okay for Catholics? this can never happen.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]
First bolded statement:
You said, and I quote:
"NFP is NOT the rhythm method. at all. completely different."

Which is a completely innacurate statement.

Second bolded statement:
Then how the hell do you suppose I learned it? 8th grade Health class. I learned it. My teacher taught it. She told us it was unrelaible, but that she had to go over all the methods so at least we'd be learning all the facts and not just picking up pieces of them up off the streets.

Third bolded statement:
It's flatout sad that you keep confusing the two things.
You say "NFP is not the rhythm method" as though there is only one form of NFP. Swap the sentence around. Let's try it:
The rhythm method is not NFP.
Yup, still wrong. The rhythm method is a form of NFP.

Fourth bolded statement:
I <em>clearly </em>never said it was.

chelseamb11 · February 2013

Simply Fated, have you considered going to see a napro/NFP friendly doctor (if you haven't)? A lot of times in situations like yours, the birth control is only masking the symptoms of a much deeper problem that causes the symptoms you are experiencing. Often with other forms of treatment you can get to the root of the problem rather than just masking the symptoms (which is what birth control often does). So many doctors are quick to throw on the bandaid of birth control to get rid of the symptoms rather than dig to the causes of those symptoms.
Eitehr way, that does not sound like a fun situation.

chelseamb11 · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:1fe1fcd0-0178-4af6-8827-a22a5c105bda">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : First bolded statement: You said, and I quote: "NFP is NOT the rhythm method. at all. completely different." Which is a completely innacurate statement. Second bolded statement: Then how the hell do you suppose I learned it? 8th grade Health class. I learned it. My teacher taught it. She told us it was unrelaible, but that she had to go over all the methods so at least we'd be learning all the facts and not just picking up pieces of them up off the streets. Third bolded statement: It's flatout sad that you keep confusing the two things. You say "NFP is not the rhythm method" as though there is only one form of NFP. Swap the sentence around. Let's try it: The rhythm method is not NFP. Yup, still wrong. The rhythm method is a form of NFP. Fourth bolded statement: I clearly never said it was.
Posted by Simply Fated[/QUOTE]
Calypso, correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Simply Fated, I think what she's trying to say is so many people think NFP is <u>only</u> the rhythm method, and because the rhythm method is an extremely unreliable method, NFP must be unreliable. Other forms of NFP are actually extremely reliable. Just as reliable as the pill actually. I started learning NFP and charting a little less than a year before our wedding and could pinpoint when I was about to ovulate every month. Once we started TTC and was backing it up with ovulation tests, I was accurate every single time figuring out when I was ovulating.

Simply Fated · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:a22d0a3d-da88-4027-94cc-6881a8fd129d">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]Simply Fated, have you considered going to see a napro/NFP friendly doctor (if you haven't)? A lot of times in situations like yours, the birth control is only masking the symptoms of a much deeper problem that causes the symptoms you are experiencing. Often with other forms of treatment you can get to the root of the problem rather than just masking the symptoms (which is what birth control often does). So many doctors are quick to throw on the bandaid of birth control to get rid of the symptoms rather than dig to the causes of those symptoms. Eitehr way, that does not sound like a fun situation.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]
I've spoken to many gynecologists about it and NONE of them just threw pills at me without asking questions, first.

Calypso1977 · February 2013

i assume you were in 8th grade 20 years ago? so much has changed in 20 years with regard to all methods of BC, natural and otherwise. i cant beleive anyone would rely on stuff taught in an 8th grade health class as accurate info.

it really all goes back to the point in the thread where you assumed that because kristan didnt use ABC she must of course be on the rhythm method. and of course, lets mock her and her lack of "common sense" right?

Simply Fated · February 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_stds-and-invitations-for-catholic-convalidation?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:69d5e8e0-41c6-470f-ab43-2ff0931870e6Post:67e64d23-9d35-4f82-9176-b3cb1f33a3f0">Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation : Calypso, correct me if I'm wrong on this. Simply Fated, I think what she's trying to say is so many people think NFP is only the rhythm method, and because the rhythm method is an extremely unreliable method, NFP must be unreliable. Other forms of NFP are actually extremely reliable. Just as reliable as the pill actually. I started learning NFP and charting a little less than a year before our wedding and could pinpoint when I was about to ovulate every month. Once we started TTC and was backing it up with ovulation tests, I was accurate every single time figuring out when I was ovulating.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]
That can't possibly be what Calypso is saying because what she said was,
"NFP is NOT the rhythm method. at all. completely different."

I never ever said that the rhythm method is the only method. I <em>literally</em> only asked the OP if that was the method she was using.

Calypso1977 · February 2013

I never ever said that the rhythm method is the only method. I literally only asked the OP if that was the method she was using.

because you assumed, iwth your 8th grade health class education on the subject, that is what people use who shun ABC.

STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation

Re: STDs and Invitations for Catholic Convalidation

Choose Another Board

Search Boards