E
Equites_Christi
Guest
So late last night I was lying in bed thinking, and something struck me. I would like to say that up until this point, I had mixed feelings about NFP. Since I trusted the Church, I accepted that NFP was permissible for a married couple to use, but just didn’t understand why. What made it so different from contraception? I had read tons of threads about the question, and somehow none of the answers really hit home. Again, for the record, I totally understand why contraception is evil. I just couldn’t see how NFP was so very different, aside from using nothing artificial.
The answer is two-fold: The act, and that crucial element in all of Christian theology: the intent.
Now, a big realization for me is that the phrase rolling off of every tongue around here “open to life” does not really talk about the consequences, but the performance of the conjugal act. I was amazed to realize that “open to life” doesn’t even have to mean “chance of conception”!
It means that the nature of the sex act is objectively ordered towards procreation. If a husband finishes inside of his wife’s miracle parts, and neither spouse has taken or will take any measure to prevent conception then theoretically, there is nothing prohibiting it. Now, the things that would still prevent conception are an existing pregnancy, the wife being in the infertile part of her cycle, or if one or both partners are sterile. However, neither partner willfully introduced the infertility to the act - it is there naturally, and, one could argue, designed by God. In the case of the existing pregnancy, they have already proved their openness to life! 
The reason people who are sterile may validly marry and engage in marital relations is because they can still engage in sex as it would be done to conceive, even if conception does not occur. Now it doesn’t count if you engage in proper sex and then, say, take a pill to prevent conception, because you are willfully introducing infertility to the act. So long as the partners do not disorder the act either physically or through chemicals, there is no problem.
The other and possibly even bigger aspect is the intent of the couple. It’s sad and very telling of the times, but what came as a realization of sorts to me is the fact that married couples are supposed to want kids! Who’d have thunk, right?
The reason a couple would use NFP is to make the best situation for a child to be born in. If they truly cannot supply the funds, time, energy, etc. to properly raise a child then one could argue it would be irresponsible to have one. But this should be seen as waiting until they can support a child, not just ending their ‘birthing career.’ The couple should have as many children as they can manage - but ‘as they can manage’ doesn’t mean living in an old shack with 10 kids running around in rags. So, why are couples allowed to have sex even when they intend not to conceive? Because, like said before, there is nothing making the act unnatural, unless one wants to argue a woman’s infertile times are unnatural. The Church has made it clear that it is licit to have sex on infertile days.
The couple should desire to have as many kids as they can. This is what I think the Church should teach. We’re told by the world that children are such a burden and a nuisance, so why would anyone want to have them? We need to be educated about the joys of raising children and their inherent beauty and dignity. Heck, that could even help prevent abortions. We need to be taught about the gift of parenthood.
Hopefully these insights can help some of you, because by the sheer number of threads about it I know there are lots of you struggling to wrap your heads around it, like I was. I think the real issue is unlearning the sex-abusing, child-hating mentalities that have been so deeply ingrained in us by society and embracing the loving wisdom of the Church.
Pax!
The answer is two-fold: The act, and that crucial element in all of Christian theology: the intent.
Now, a big realization for me is that the phrase rolling off of every tongue around here “open to life” does not really talk about the consequences, but the performance of the conjugal act. I was amazed to realize that “open to life” doesn’t even have to mean “chance of conception”!
It means that the nature of the sex act is objectively ordered towards procreation. If a husband finishes inside of his wife’s miracle parts, and neither spouse has taken or will take any measure to prevent conception then theoretically, there is nothing prohibiting it. Now, the things that would still prevent conception are an existing pregnancy, the wife being in the infertile part of her cycle, or if one or both partners are sterile. However, neither partner willfully introduced the infertility to the act - it is there naturally, and, one could argue, designed by God. In the case of the existing pregnancy, they have already proved their openness to life! The reason people who are sterile may validly marry and engage in marital relations is because they can still engage in sex as it would be done to conceive, even if conception does not occur. Now it doesn’t count if you engage in proper sex and then, say, take a pill to prevent conception, because you are willfully introducing infertility to the act. So long as the partners do not disorder the act either physically or through chemicals, there is no problem.The other and possibly even bigger aspect is the intent of the couple. It’s sad and very telling of the times, but what came as a realization of sorts to me is the fact that married couples are supposed to want kids! Who’d have thunk, right?
The reason a couple would use NFP is to make the best situation for a child to be born in. If they truly cannot supply the funds, time, energy, etc. to properly raise a child then one could argue it would be irresponsible to have one. But this should be seen as waiting until they can support a child, not just ending their ‘birthing career.’ The couple should have as many children as they can manage - but ‘as they can manage’ doesn’t mean living in an old shack with 10 kids running around in rags. So, why are couples allowed to have sex even when they intend not to conceive? Because, like said before, there is nothing making the act unnatural, unless one wants to argue a woman’s infertile times are unnatural. The Church has made it clear that it is licit to have sex on infertile days.The couple should desire to have as many kids as they can. This is what I think the Church should teach. We’re told by the world that children are such a burden and a nuisance, so why would anyone want to have them? We need to be educated about the joys of raising children and their inherent beauty and dignity. Heck, that could even help prevent abortions. We need to be taught about the gift of parenthood.
Hopefully these insights can help some of you, because by the sheer number of threads about it I know there are lots of you struggling to wrap your heads around it, like I was. I think the real issue is unlearning the sex-abusing, child-hating mentalities that have been so deeply ingrained in us by society and embracing the loving wisdom of the Church.
Pax!
I think of NFP as determining when not to have sex, instead of being used to determine when to have sex. Using NFP is not an action, but rather the absence of action. Contraception on the other hand is a direct action committed to prevent conception. When someone is able to see why this difference is important, is when they come to understand why NFP is morally acceptable and contraception is not. Some people are fortunate and are able to see and recognize the difference without personal experience, while others have to see the effects of contraception use first hand before they understand it.