Frankie is either stupid or evil.

Do Roman Catholics practice the rhythm method or NFP?

As I attempt to convince my Protestant brothers and sisters that the Catholic Church is the only defender of the sanctity of innocent life from fertilization until natural death, I ask you for clarification of your comments.

The OP is wrong in this assessment. The church I attend believes in life from the moment of fertilization to the end of life.

He is also incorrect on his statement regarding the RCC as "always" being against abortion.

Several historians have written[53][54][55] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.

Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but many prominent Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. For example, in her treatises the 12th century abbess and later saint Hildegard of Bingen recommended tansy as an effective abortifacient.[56] In the 13th century physician and cleric Peter of Spain wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (literally Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[57]:205-211 Peter of Spain became Pope John XXI in 1276.

Some prominent theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception.[58][59]:172,180 John Chrysostom believed that late-stage abortion was not as bad as deliberately killing an already-born person, whereas contraception was definitely worse than murder, according to him.[57]:98-99

Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law.[23][24] Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure: "Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born."(De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15))

Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and therefore early abortion was not murder, though later abortion was.[10][23][not in citation given] Aquinas held that abortion was still wrong, even when not murder, regardless of when the soul entered the body.[60] Pope Stephen V and Pope Sixtus V opposed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.[23][24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion#Early_Christianity

Juno

As I attempt to convince my Protestant brothers and sisters that the Catholic Church is the only defender of the sanctity of innocent life from fertilization until natural death, I ask you for clarification of your comments.

But some evangelical leaders, perhaps tired of explaining what happens in the murky hours between sex and conception, are no longer relying on this intricate biological argument to shoo their followers away from birth control. In a recent blog post, Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, declared that evangelical acceptance of oral contraceptives happened “without any adequate theological reflection.” Evangelicals today, he wrote, are “indeed reconsidering contraception.” In Mohler’s view, contraception isn’t just problematic because it might cause abortion. Any attempt to artificially regulate fertility is at odds with a “pro-life” ethos.

Fifteen years ago, this position would have been unthinkable. But an about-face on contraception isn’t unprecedented; in fact, evangelicals’ growing doubt about birth control echoes their theological U-turn on abortion four decades ago.

It’s hard to imagine today that there was ever a moment when abortion wasn’t at the crux of evangelical political consciousness. In the late 1960s, when the pro-life movement was just beginning to coalesce, animosity toward abortion was left to the Catholics. Well-known evangelical leaders rejected the Catholic notion of fetal personhood wholesale. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” observed W.A. Criswell, then the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1973.

Little more than a decade later, Criswell and others were leading the charge in an impassioned crusade against legal abortion, creating one of the first evangelical-Catholic coalitions in American political history. But birth control didn’t come along for the ride; it remained, until recently, a matter of Catholic concern. Could the same evangelical reversal be taking place today—this time, with contraception?

Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14).

Could you explain how NFP (Natural Family Planning), which IS approved by the Roman Catholic church, doesn't fit under this? It is a conscious, planned method to avoid having sexual intercourse during the fertile time in the woman's cycle.

Dear Holy Father: A Catholic’s Query on Contraception

Contraception: a method used to avoid getting pregnant.

Catholics DO have an approved method.

It has something to do with rhythm I hear...

Attention Students everywhere!

Snorting a condom up your nose is NOT a Rome approved method!