Last September 2005 at the BEC National Assembly in Cebu, I shared with the participants “A Formation Program on Natural Family Planning for BECs in Ipil Prelature.” A number of delegates expressed their interest to adopt a similar NFP program in their areas.
To date, our Responsible Parenthood—NFP program has tabulated an encouraging total of 1,025 NFP users throughout the prelature. So far, we have covered a fourth of our 626 kapilya communities. A distinctive aspect of our program is that we provide information on all modern NFP methods, including the Standard Days Method. This is what we now call our All-NFP program.
Unfortunately, there continue to be some apprehensions about SDM as an NFP method. At the Mindanao regional meeting of Family & Life coordinators in Malaybalay in mid-September, these apprehensions were raised once more. Allow me then to clarify some issues based on our pastoral experience in Ipil.
1. On SDM as a natural family planning method:
In our consensus vote at the CBCP plenary assembly in July 2003, we all agreed that SDM in itself was a natural method and could be included in the diocese’s own NFP program, provided it was not mixed with contraceptives and was not seen as part of a government program that promotes contraceptives. Archbishop P. Aniceto reiterated this CBCP stand at the Malaybalay meeting.
In the prelature, we have included SDM in our All-NFP program, even before government workers became aware of this new method. Integrated in the program is our value formation which advocates for abstinence and precludes any use of back-up contraceptive methods during the fertile period. As a rule of thumb, we stress to couples that NFP means no DIDO—i.e., no drugs, injections, devices, or operations. We have also adapted and translated our own NFP training manual, which includes modules on value formation.
2. On the effectivity of SDM:
Among our 675 SDM users, we have had only a handful of complaints regarding the failure of the method itself. This is expected since no method is perfect. Among starting users of any of the NFP methods that we advocate, there have indeed been some drop-outs, but these have been due mostly to the wrong use of the method, lack of interest, or planned pregnancy, and not principally due to the failure of the method itself.
On the whole, SDM users in the prelature have been adopting the method for one to three years now because they have found it to be simple, effective, and practicable.
3. On SDM as a “recycled rhythm method”:
The earlier calendar rhythm method was a customized method, based on the individual woman’s calculation of her shortest and longest cycles from six previous recorded cycles. This then involved some cumbersome computations to determine the first and the last fertile days of the next cycle.
SDM on the other hand, is a standardized method, based on computer simulations of statistical probabilities which make it applicable to a large segment of the population—in this case, women with average regular cycles of 26 up to 32 days. Starting from the first day of menstruation, days 8-19 are identified as the fertile period. The effectivity rate of 95.25% has been validated through clinical field trials in three countries where almost 500 women were followed up for 13 cycles.
It is good to keep in mind that the original calendar rhythm method developed from the pioneering work of Ogino and Knaus is still recognized by the Church as a morally valid method. Pastorally, however, its reliability has been questioned because of the meticulous calculations involved on the one hand and the inaccurate popularizations of the method on the other.
It is this same principle of using a calendar that has been simplified in a scientific way in SDM to make it practicable and reliable for a wider number of women. In the prelature, we find that about two-thirds of NFP users prefer this standardized method because of its simplicity and ease of learning.
4. On SDM as a method that is “bound to fail and promote the use of contraceptives”:
One reason for our All-NFP program is to give couples the widest latitude in choosing the NFP method that for them is suitable, reliable and not “bound to fail.” Indeed, many couples tell us that they choose SDM because they themselves want to move away from contraceptives.
Several couples told us that the 12-day period of abstinence in SDM did create difficulties for them for the first few months. But they have eventually learned to cope with this. Not the least of the factors behind this is their understanding of sacrifice in a truly Christian marriage. What is also equally important for them is that now they are surer in determining the fertile and infertile periods. A number of “traditional rhythm” practitioners, using their own homemade formula of fertile and infertile days, have shifted to SDM without much difficulty. Moreover, in addition to SDM, almost a third of our NFP users are adopting the Billings Ovulation Method.
5. On the Billings method as the only NFP method to be taught:
For over three decades we have been teaching the Billings Ovulation Method, and continue to do so. However, our family life workers have found the acceptability rate of BOM to be limited, due to the requirements of daily charting and follow-up by a trainor for three to six months. Some women can hardly read or write. Others have expressed their cultural aversion to minute examination of the cervical mucus. We note that the more educated women, like public school teachers, are the ones more likely to stay with BOM. We also find that for many couples the choice is not so much between BOM and SDM, but rather between SDM and artificial contraceptives.
In this light, we find that an inclusive NFP program promoting all modern NFP methods is more acceptable to couples and can reach more households even in the most remote areas. Paradoxically, we have more BOM users today in our All-NFP program than during the time when BOM was being taught alone. It is left ultimately for the couple to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each method, with the help of individual counseling. Some couples also learn to combine methods, or shift from one method to another. This, we believe, is a more mature aspect of their value formation in responsible parenthood.
6. On the use of SDM cycle beads:
The cycle beads have variously been described as a necklace, a new kind of “rosary” or even as a “satanic” device. Simply put, the cycle beads are only an aid to measuring and identifying the days of the menstrual cycle; they are not the method itself. In the prelature, we have devised a less expensive string of “vertical beads” that serve the same purpose. Couples also tell us that the beads have helped them to communicate better with each other on a matter that is often left unspoken.
7. On the prelature’s promotion of SDM because of outside funding:
Ever since we started our revitalized NFP program three years ago, the Prelature of Ipil has depended mostly on its own limited resources. We have not received any funding from Philippine or foreign governments for our activities. We simply consider these activities part of our Family Life Apostolate to promote responsible parenthood through natural family planning.
We have received some assistance from private donors who believe in NFP to subsidize our training seminars. But we depend mostly on the volunteer services of hundreds of NFP providers in our kapilya communities to sustain and expand the program. This is why we feel optimistic that our experience could easily be replicated by other interested dioceses, particularly through our Basic Ecclesial Community structures.
OUR COMMON CHALLENGE
Whither then, NFP? Is there an urgent need to set up a concrete program for natural family planning in every diocese? From our pastoral experience in Ipil, we realize that the majority of couples today have three felt needs:
1) They want family planning – i.e., to plan the size of their family and to space births;
2) They prefer natural family planning, if given adequate information on fertility awareness and NFP methods; and
3) They want to choose among NFP methods – to suit their own circumstances and preference.
It is in this light that I would plead for openness and dialogue in our discussions and common concern over natural family planning methods. Let us come together to encourage, not disparage, each other’s pastoral program. There is no need for acrimonious debates when we should all be confronting the more urgent pastoral needs of couples. Let us not be afraid to innovate and take risks if we want to address the pastoral needs of a greater number of households.
Regardless of which NFP methods we wish to promote, at the very least, we should be ready to show the actual numbers of NFP users in our localities. For a program without numbers is not a pastoral reality; at best, it remains an advocacy dream.
In my own talks to CEAP educators and religious organizations lately, many have expressed their readiness to work closely with bishops in promoting a concrete NFP program in their localities. Catholic doctors, midwives, and even public health workers have also expressed their readiness to work with the local church in promoting NFP. Perhaps it is time to go beyond just saying “No!” to government programs and to say “Yes!” to our own NFP program.
Our biggest challenge today may not be to confront government or an international conspiracy but rather to address the felt needs of thousands of married couples in our rural and urban poor neighborhoods. For the most part, these are couples who are looking for and are ready to adopt any of the NFP methods that we can show them to be safe, reliable, inexpensive, and practicable.
On the part of the Prelature of Ipil, despite our limitations, may I extend an open invitation for any observers to visit our NFP pilot sites. We also have a training team on all NFP methods that is ready to give seminars upon invitation and to share our NFP pastoral experience in the prelature.
Hoping that you share this vision and this letter with your Family Life coordinators, and with my best wishes and prayers for a dynamic NFP ministry throughout the country.