Natural family planning.

From J.K. MacKenzie re Natural Family Planning 

"Not to oppose error is o approve of it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it."

--Pope St. Felix III

In response to the letter of Chris Beneteau (C.I., Sept. 2004), I stress that the main question I raised (July/August 2004) was whether NFP was also responsible for the lowest birthrate ever in Canada. He admitted, "Can NFP be misused? Yes." If that is the case, then it can be submitted that it is being used as a contraceptive method, and, thus, NFP has affected negatively our birth rate.

A subordinate question was, "What percentage of Catholic couples have more than two children?" He suggested that the question should have been, "What percentage of Catholic couples use NFP?" Then, relying on his encounters with other couples, his circle of friends and his own marriage, he makes the definitive statement, "The answer is very few." Some critics of NFP would argue that such a statement lacks adequate underpinning, as the group he is relying on only represents a small island in our vast country and world.

Mr. Beneteau takes issue with the statement that "both contraception and NFP have the same fundamental purpose--the prevention of conception and therefore children." He asserts, "Contraceptive couples intend to avoid having children while NFP couples may decide to postpone having children ... there is prudence in the planned spacing of children ... [T]hey say ... " God, we are not ready for a child at this time ... " [They] are simply "not doing" intercourse during the fertile times.... "

Postpone means "cause or arrange (an event, etc.) to take place at a later time," and "space" means, "set or arrange at intervals." Aren't those mindsets indicative of expectations that conception will not occur during those periods of time, so that a child will not be formed in the womb? Furthermore, if NFP is not meant to prevent conception, what is its purpose?

Mr. Beneteau also claims that "a period of physical recovery is necessary before another child is brought into the world" to justify the use of NFP. If that is required, then all mothers should use NFP after birth. But is that really necessary? Hasn't God Almighty factored into the post-partum time frame a stay in the reproductive mechanism during breast feeding? But how could the recovery-use be made of NFP universally when Humanae vitae (10) only permits " ... the decision, made for grave motives and with respect for the moral law, to avoid a new birth for the time being, or even for an indeterminate time?" (emphasis added).

It is conceded that a pregnancy can occur during lactation, but as one obstetrician in Ontario recently declared, such occurrence in "one in a million." In any event, such a conception can only occur if God wills it.

Regarding Mr. Beneteau's classification of the parents of St. Catherine of Siena who had 25 children, as possessing "heroic virtue," I counter with: " ... if two of you shall consent upon earth concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18: 19).

I reiterate the opinion of Msgr. Cormac Burke: "God is the one with the most knowledge and longest experience who knows best the answer to the question: 'How many children can crown our family project?'"

Only God can truly answer the question posed as to whether NFP has adversely affected our national birthrate.

London, ON

Editor: Mr. MacKenzie, in paragraph one, speaks of "a contraceptive method". A contraceptive method means a method of preventing an act of intercourse from being fertile. This is not what NFP does.

As for prudence in the spacing of children, The Catechism of the Church states, "For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children" (#2368). This letter concludes the discussion.