what’s so bad about nfp?
i mean besides, you know, EVERYTHING?
beyond a brief mention a few months ago, i haven’t really voiced much opposition to natural family planning, aka fake “catholic” contraception, nor have i gone into much detail as to what it is that i find so objectionable about it.
the main reason for this, embarrassingly enough, is that i can’t seem to remember what precisely it is that i find so offensive.
on the one hand, a principal element of nfp is continence, that is, abstaining from sexual intercourse, and this seems to me to be a rather good thing. after all, sexuality is rather disgusting, and its exercise within marriage, though sacred, is still pretty gross if you ask me. so avoiding sex is good, right?
BUT on the other hand, abstinence means that a married couple isn’t actively trying to have children, which is the whole purpose of getting married in the first place. my heart breaks when i think of all the children who will never see the light of day, but are instead exiled to the realm of nothingness, just because parents aren’t willing to bring them into existence. what happens to these children that supposedly “catholic” mothers and fathers refuse to accept from God? i shudder to even think about this injustice, not least because i can’t actually wrap my mind around the concept of a non-existent person being sinned against.
HOWEVER, i would think that the danger of demographic suicide that nfp represents is in this respect not altogether different from the church’s praise of “heroic continence,” to say nothing of its exhortation to celibacy and holy virginity for those singularly blessed with the graced repression and rejection of their icky sexuality. and yet up to the time of the second vatican council, the church’s numbers were always strong, and we have every reason to hope that they will become strong once again.
BUT on the other hand, maybe the failure of faithful catholics to bite the bullet and engage in marital relations is a big part of why there are no more than a handful of real catholics around today.
HOWEVER, in that case, continence and celibacy would be an even bigger obstacle to the church than modernism, which is absurd. besides, the even bigger problem with nfp is that it ALLOWS sex, just not at “peak” times, right? this means that nfp is practically no different from fornication or bestiality or masturbation.
so which is it? is nfp evil because it discourages intercourse, or because it discourages intercourse? i can’t quite see how it could possibly be both.
all i know is that it is evil and i hate it and i love love love to proclaim the good news about how it is evil and those who practice it are manifest contracepting sinners and that i will pray for them.
(i never do pray for them, you know.)