NFP Method Choice


My husband and I are currently using the STM of NFP to help us achieve pregnancy. My cycles are terribly long and possibly anovulatory, and I am really wishing I had the support of an understanding doctor. I have been researching the Creighton Model and NaProTechnology and FertilityCare Centers, and it all sounds amazingly wonderful! I’m contemplating making the switch to Creighton, and I was looking for some feedback.

Which NFP method do you use?

Why did you choose that one?

Have you been satisfied with the first method you learned, or have you switched?

Is there anything that makes one better than another, or is it all just personal preference?

And on a bit of a side note, can anyone tell me WHY Creighton omits the temperature sign? Does the Creighton Model consider temperatures a bad thing, or only unnecessary?

Thanks. :slight_smile:


Welcome to the forums!

We use Creighton. I didn’t necessarily pick it from any others. We lived in Germany and I was home visiting my parents for the summer. I contacted their diocese family life office and Creighton is what I got!

I have never considered switching methods, have been teaching it for 5 years, and am a Napro patient as well.

What I tell my potential clients who aren’t sure if they want to switch is that if they are comfortable with what they are using, there really is no need. They are all beneficial. However, I do like them to know the potential of NaproTechnology in case it is ever needed.

We don’t use the temp because it is not really a necessary sign. It can’t, as you know, help determine pre-ovulatory infertility and the CM does determine post-ovulatory infertility. Temps can vary for many reasons as you probably already know.

Dr. Hilgers does have women check temps for other reasons (thyroid) but we never use it as a sign of ovulation. That said, there are many cycles where I have checked throughout. In all my years of infertility, I have a mental thing where I won’t start doing pregnancy tests early if I am monitoring my temps. (Prior to treatment, I had very long luteal phases. It is a quirk that I have, but since it saves me money and (most importantly) the emotional investment, I do it.


Here’s another vote for Creighton. Again, it’s what I got when I asked around.

I like it because its easy, objective, and low hassle - and I don’t have to deal with a thermometer. I like the option of having the NaPro technology available as well.


Quickie post:
Creighton user, here; switched from sympto-thermal after birth of first son. (Mostly because my ob/gyn was starting trainging with Dr. Hilgers at the time & strongly recommended it.) But I was also concerned about taking temps when I was breastfeeding around the clock & not getting full chunks of sleep.

I didn’t care for the internal (cervical) checks–handwashing before & after, discomfort.

I love the standardized aspect of everything Creighton & NaPro.

I would imagine (but do not know for sure) that the temp. is omitted w/ Creighton due to the non-standard aspect of it–too many factors/variables w/ time, illness, etc.

I love the seamless way one can move from just charting w/ Creighton into the NaPro aspect of it. I needed Hcg & progesterone support with this pregnancy, and I don’t know how sympto-thermal would have detected this nor treated it; w/ Creigthon, the clues were right there & we did what needed to be done.


We use STM only because that’s the only class that was offered by our diocese…
I LOVE it… I love having lots of DATA to work with (I’m an engineer, so this method seems extremely “logical” to me)…

I would be afraid to limit myself to just one piece of information (the mucous only)… when there are two additional wonderful data points (cervical and temperature) that can help you determine your cycle and fertility. I feel more comfortable having all the data I can get.

I find the cervical check and temperature to be the most informative for me personally.

I’ve used it for over 6 1/2 years now… both for trying to achieve and trying to avoid conception… I’ve never had an issue and I’m absolutely thrilled with the method.


I’ve been doing Creighton for over 5 years for my health (I’m single).
My NFP-only doc looks at my charts to further determine health issues.

While STM has more secondary indicators, most couples I have talked to abandon some for portions of the cycle. This leads to a non-scientific observing, then you can’t count the indicator as being reliable anymore. Temp taking must be standardized in order to work…and there are so many variables that lead to inaccurate temps (must have regular sleep). It can be a nice cross-check, however, remember, the mucous is what provides the channels for “swimming”, not a higher temp. A newer method: Marquette, uses an ovulation tester, (urine test) every night…it serves as a double check.

When it comes down to it though, its about the mucous. In creighton, there is a “when in doubt” rule. If you are in doubt, consider fertile and add 3 days. If you are dry for 4 days or more, you won’t be fertile.

There is a difference in the philosophies between creighton and sympto-thermal. Apparently, ST method lets you shave off days, or lets you determine whether you are being “conservative” in your avoiding pregnancy or not, and so there are “iffy” days.
Creighton is absolute black and white. For example, If you engage in intercourse before the night of peak plus 4, then you are no longer using the method to avoid pregnancy, but to achieve.There’s no “iffy” in there. There is a possibility of pregnancy in there. (I’m not including pre-peak here, this was just an example).

I love Creighton that it is so completely standardized, and scientific…especially in observations. Every single restroom visit, the same way, every time.


10 years and 6 children ago we learned CCL’s version of STM because that’s what was offered in our Diocese. We’ve had no problems with the method–it’s worked just like it’s supposed to :slight_smile: I like the cross checking of temps with mucous and cervix position. I’ve never had trouble with my temps going too crazy, even with breastfeeding, but that’s just been my experience.



I’m unmarried, and I’ve just started learning Creighton. I love that it’s standardized, that it gives clear definitions of what each type of mucus is, and that it connects to NaPro technology easily, if I ever needed it. I like the black-and-whiteness of it. It’s either green, or it’s white baby. No messing around or guessing or wondering if you got enough sleep, etc. :stuck_out_tongue: I tried STM for awhile, and I hated having to take my temp first thing in the morning. :rolleyes: Mind, that was without an instructor, so maybe it would be different if I had a teacher.


I use Creighton. It’s the only method I learned officially, although I did read the STM books and for a while tracked temp (wasn’t married at the time so it was just for information).

I love Creighton. I chose it b/c I wanted to be able to consult w/specialists if necessary and also b/c it has advantages for peri-menopause which will be here sooner rather than later for me.

Temp is not necessary for the basic method instruction. The thermal shift is an indicator of ovulation, although not 100%, so you can add temp on to your CrM instruction to see if you get a shift.


Thank you, everyone, for your replies. It’s really nice to be able to get so many different perspectives. :slight_smile:


creighton!! love it


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit