Archive for the ‘Mucus-only’ Category

Natural Family Planning: Mucus-only Systems

Sunday, January 27th, 2019

Recently I saw a blog that raised my concerns about mucus-only systems.  First, some background.  The late Fr. Paul Marx OSB conducted an NFP symposium every summer in the Seventies.  I attended these from 1971 through 1978 and heard Dr. John Billings give his talk each year.  He was such a convincing speaker that he would leave me wondering why we taught the cross-checking Sympto-Thermal system.  That question evaporated when I realized that there was at that conference another meeting to which I was not invited.  The Ovulation Method (OM) teachers would get together to discuss real-life situations.  They were finding that in real life things were not as simple as in the talks by Dr. Billings.  The temperature sign can be a  tremendous help and especially when the mucus signs are ambiguous or difficult to interpret.  By the way, Fr. Paul Marx was a supporter of NFP International.

At the talks by Dr. Billings, I heard him say two things that are troubling to this day.  In one talk he explained why he and his associates had dropped the temperature sign.  He said it was too easy.  It was so easy to use and interpret the temperatures that their Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) users were getting sloppy with their mucus observations.  Thus, his method systematically deprives his mucus-only users of the very-easy-to-use temperature sign.  Our answer to this problem is to point out that each sign is very important, especially in some situations.  If a couple decides to use only one sign, that’s their business, but we strive to give them the freedom to choose.  I strongly object to the deliberate withholding of this information, the deliberate reduction of couples’ freedom to make informed choices.

I also heard Dr. Billings explain that his system does not teach the teachings of the Church regarding birth control.  He used the word “crutch” in saying that his method stands on its own merits as a method of birth control and does not need the “crutch” of religion.  The Hilgers system likewise advertises that it is open to people of all faiths.  He certainly doesn’t encourage any immoral behaviors, but his system does not explicitly teach Catholic teaching on unnatural forms of birth control.  A Hilgers user-couple once told us that such a lack of specific teaching led them to practice masturbation during the fertile time until they somehow got our materials.  In our manual’s witness chapter, one gentleman says he and his spouse used our 1996 manual for self-instruction but skipped the sections on morality and resorted to masturbation during the fertile time. They finally read those sections and repented.  I am sure that these cases are not at all exceptional.  In the mid-Seventies, a secular fertility-awareness book openly recommended oral sodomy although it condemned anal sodomy on grounds of being unsanitary.  I think it is imperative to state the specific unnatural forms of birth control.

Perhaps when the Billings dropped the teaching of morality, there were no immediate bad consequences because the users were made very much aware of the fullness of Catholic teaching by their Catholic education and parish priests.  Certainly that cannot be counted on today.

I am more convinced than ever that it is imperative to teach the covenant theology of the marriage act simply because it is so easy to grasp.  It also makes it very easy to understand the dishonesty of “marriage acts” outside of marriage.

Lastly, the Billings method of birth control is not as effective as it is sometimes claimed to be.  Right after Humanae Vitae, the U.S. bishops founded the Human Life Foundation to assist couples to live the teaching of the encyclical.  The Foundation persuaded the NIH to conduct an impartial study to determine the relative effectiveness of the STM and the OM.  It was published in 1981, stating that there were approximately twice as many surprise pregnancies in the OM group.  Drs. Billings and Hilgers criticized it at length even though they had been consultants to the study.  For example, they found fault with the study’s inclusion of unmarried couples.  Does anyone have good reason to think that unmarried couples are less motivated to avoid pregnancy than married couples? The bottom line is that the US Bishops through their Human Life Foundation sponsored a study which gave the above results, but many or most dioceses have ignored those results. In other words, while the OM may be very good, the comparative study showed that it is second best.

Couples have a right to know all the common signs of fertility, ecological breastfeeding, and the covenant theology of the marriage act.

For readers interested in what we teach at NFP International, go to NFPandmore.org and purchase Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach.

John F. Kippley

 

Natural Family Planning: Adequate Instruction

Sunday, December 2nd, 2018

What constitutes adequate NFP instruction as part of Catholic education?  First, instruction in Natural Family Planning should be in the context of Christian discipleship and chastity. Catholic moral teaching must be integrated into the instruction. The NFP course should NOT be just a course in female and male fertility.

Second, the course should respect the first principle of educational psychology: you can choose only something that you know about. That means that couples should be taught not just one sign of fertility but all three of the common signs—basal body temperature, cervical mucus, and the cervix itself. Only in that way can students be free to choose among common and morally acceptable systems of fertility awareness. I don’t care what sign or signs they actually use, but fairness in fertility awareness requires this much.

Many priests and bishops have been led to believe that the mucus-only systems are just as good as or even better and more effective than the cross-checking mucus-and-temperature system. The US Bishops’ Human Life Foundation (1968-1993) persuaded the NIH to conduct an unbiased study to resolve the conflicting claims of the contrasting systems. Their report in 1981 stated that the cross-checking system was more effective because the Billings mucus-only system had more unplanned pregnancies by a ratio of two to one. Yet many dioceses still offer only mucus-only systems or give them so much backing that the cross-checking system can be found only with difficulty.

Third, NFP instruction should also include the teaching and promotion of Ecological Breastfeeding. That’s the form of baby care in which mother and baby remain together, and that mother-baby togetherness thus encourages and enables frequent nursing via the Seven Standards. Every kind of breastfeeding does some good, but the frequent suckling of Ecological Breastfeeding maximizes the great health benefits of breastfeeding for both baby and mother. It truly is God’s own plan for nutrition, protection, and spacing babies.

John F. Kippley

Natural Family Planning: A More Complete Approach

Sunday, April 30th, 2017

Today there are many options available for using natural family planning…from apps to the teaching of all options to the teaching of temperature-only to the teaching of mucus-only.  We rarely receive calls for advice on NFP.  The few who call say they are using NFP but do not know what is going on in their cycle.  Then we learn they were using only one sign because that is all they learned.  They are dismayed that they were not taught the temperature sign.  The effectiveness of this sign for the start of Phase 3 (post-ovulation infertility) has been proved to be as effective as sterilization.  Yet many Catholic couples are completely unaware of this fact. (Analysis of Dr. Christopher Tietze of the Population Council)

We are often disappointed when Church employees promote a mucus-only approach.  Such persons are not providing the other fertility signs nor are they teaching God’s plan for spacing babies via the correct type of breastfeeding.  What follows is adopted from a letter sent to a correspondent.

You need to understand that the NaPro Technology is very good for women with such a serious case of infertility that it can be treated only with surgery.  That is, it is a moral alternative to in vitro fertilization and artificial reproductive technology.  It is, however, a last step that should be taken only after the couple has tried to improve their fertility with nutrition and improved fertility awareness.  Marilyn Shannon’s book, Fertility, Cycles and Nutrition, is an excellent source of information about fertility-related nutrition.  Sometimes the solution is as simple as taking a guaifenesin supplement – it liquifies both bronchial and cervical mucus.

Part of the usual workup for using NaPro Technology is to take the Creighton Model course on fertility awareness.  While this may be helpful for Dr. Hilgers’ research, we don’t think it is a good form of natural family planning for ordinary couples for three reasons.  1) It fails to teach the temperature sign; 2) it fails to teach ecological breastfeeding; and 3) It fails to teach standard Catholic sexual marital morality regarding the temptations faced by couples practicing abstinence during the fertile time.  And despite these significant omissions, it is expensive to take the whole Creighton Model course and follow-ups.

I invite you to make inquirers aware of Natural Family Planning International and its Home Study Course at www.nfpandmore.org.

John F. Kippley
Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach