|
|
 |
Kevin
Nguyen
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
I am confused about the purpose of (NFP) Natural
Family Planning. I have read that it's purpose
is to help or prevent pregnancy. I have also
read that it is used for serious reasons relating
to pregnancy.
- Nevertheless, if couples just want to
prevent pregnancy or avoid health reasons
relating to sex and pregnancy, then why
don't they just abstain?
- Doesn't NFP involve intentionally reducing
the chance of pregnancy?
Even though it doesn't render procreation
impossible, it still is a means and, possibly,
an end to preventing pregnancy. That doesn't
sound very procreative to me. I thought sex
was supposed to be both unifying and procreative.
I have also read that NFP is used to space
out the birth of children and for other economical
purposes. However, that still brings me back
to the question:
I cannot deny the fact that if a couple is
trying to reduce the chance of a pregnancy
then they have the intent or hope that a child
would not be born.
- If they have some serious reason for
why they would not want a child, then why
don't they just abstain?
It seems to me that what the Church teaches
about sex and NFP contradict each other but
the reason I am asking questions is because
I do not know for sure, and so I would appreciate
a thorough answer.
Thank you for reading my question.
Kevin
|
|
{
Can you clarify how the Church's teaching on sex and Natural Family Planning don't contradict? }
|
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Kevin,
Married people are supposed to engage
in intercourse. They need it. God
uses it to build them up in grace.
It would be wrong to abstain totally,
unless sickness or absence required
it. It is the sign of marriage.
NFP involves abstinence for short
periods, the time of fertility. One
can use it only if one has serious
reasons to avoid procreating a child.
It is as effective as any artificial
contraception.
You are right that marriage must
be procreative, and that every marital
act must not be closed to procreation,
but God is
allowed to close the marital act
to procreation. He does this
by making procreation unlikely during
most of the cycle and during most
of a couple's life. From age fifty
on up, couples are still allowed
to have marital intercourse.
Hope this helps.
Mary Ann
|
Paul
replied:
|
Kevin,
By the way you worded your question
I'm not sure you understand what
NFP is. It is
abstaining from sex . . . not
permanently, but periodically when
the wife is naturally fertile, as
Mary Ann stated.
This kind of marital abstaining
for serious and responsible reasons
is morally justified.
Paul
|
Kevin
replied:
|
Thank you for giving me a bit more
information, but I am still a little
unsure.
I know that NFP involves abstaining
periodically, but it also involves
purposefully choosing a time that
lessens fertility.
- Shouldn't it be the case that
if there is a serious reason to
not have a child, then abstain,
and if you want a child, then
have sex at that time?
- Why is NFP needed when we already
have both abstinence and sex;
both an on-and-off switch?
- Furthermore, what exactly are
these serious and responsible reasons?
- Are they just health and economically-related
reasons, or is there more to it?
I would like to clear up my confusion;
thank you all for helping me do so.
Kevin
|
Paul
replied:
|
Kevin,
You stated:
Shouldn't it
be the case that if there is a serious
reason to not have a child, then
abstain, and if you want a child,
then have sex at that time?
But that's exactly what NFP does.
The married couple abstains from
intercourse during the fertile times
of the month. If you are suggesting
they abstain the entire time of their
hardship, that is an option but not
a necessary one.
God has designed it so that human
fertility is possible only during
certain periods of each month, so coming together as one-flesh, while at other times abstaining from the fertile times, cooperates with God and our nature rather than contradicting it as contraception would.
The Church has never created a list
of justifiable reasons for the temporary
utilization of NFP, but the general
consensus is that it can not be utilized
selfishly. That is judged by the
reasonable assessment of the couple.
Paul
|
Kevin
replied:
|
Hi, Paul —
You said:
The Church has
never created a list of justifiable
reasons for the temporary utilization
of NFP, but the general consensus
is that it can not be utilized selfishly.
- but what exactly would be selfish
and what would not be selfish?
- On one hand, I cannot see that it
is selfish if both husband and wife
have to work together to use the
method.
- On the other hand, the only
way I can see it being selfish, is
if the couple wants to have sex without
having a baby.
I just don't know which is
right, or whether one of them is
right at all.
- Please elaborate in detail on
what reasons are selfish and
what reasons are acceptable for
using NFP.
Kevin
|
Paul
replied:
|
Kevin,
You want me to elaborate on details
of what is defined as selfish when
the Church herself has not come up
with a detailed list. It wouldn't
be right for me to make one up.
It is not always selfish to want
to space children, but doing so:
- out of laziness
- for hedonistic reasons, or
- excessive material pursuits
might be a good start in looking
at, what is a selfish attitude.
Paul
|
Kevin
replied:
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Kevin,
Yes, It is the right and duty of the couple
to decide in conscience, with a generous
and trusting spirit, how many children
they can procreate and educate.
Mary Ann
|
|
|
|
