Seminar 1 – 1B1, Saturday 4:00-5:30
Reaction Paper
Topic: God, Sex, & Babies
God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood
This short article mainly talks about: (1) the distinction between Natural Family
Planning (NFP) and by using contraceptives and (2) Whether love is an incarnate or
disincarnate love. The goal of this article is simply to outline some of the common questions
pertaining to responsible parenthood with the hope of bringing some balance to the
discussion.
It started by pointing out that “perhaps the main problem is failure to grasp the
profound distinction between contraception and periodic abstinence or natural family
planning (NFP). While contraception is never compatible with an authentic vision of
responsible parenthood, the Church teaches that NFP — given the proper disposition of the
spouses — can be. It also occurs among those who think any attempt to avoid or space
children is a sign of "weak faith" or "lack of trust in God." Then there is another group of
people who accept the licitness of NFP but argue about what constitutes a serious enough
reason for using it.”
I somehow disagree with the statement that contraception is never compatible with an
authentic vision of responsible parenthood. For me, responsible parenthood involves not only
natural family planning but also by using contraception. Though, I have no problem with the
church teaching of natural family planning, but I found it not very effective specially on our
present state. The world’s population is getting bigger and bigger, and I think the best solution
so far is by using contraceptives. But it does not also mean that since it is effective, it is right.
My point here is responsible parenthood should not be based solely on natural family
planning but also by using contraceptives or any other means.
This article also mentions about incarnate love. Incarnate love talks about the body’s
capacity of expressing love: that love precisely in which the person becomes a gift and — by
means of this gift — fulfills the very meaning of his being and existence. God created us male
and female and called us to "be fruitful and multiply" as a sign of his own mystery of life-giving
love in the world. I agree with this but I am still thinking about the phrase “be fruitful and
multiply”. Is this still relevant today? Even with overpopulation? During those time I
understand that it is necessary since the people that time are only few. But today, I think it
is not relevant anymore.
The article mentions about Selfishness: the enemy of responsible parenthood. The
point is that in order for parenthood to be "responsible," the decision to avoid sexual union
during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must
not be motivated by selfishness. I somehow find this statement vague of some sort. For
example, the parents wanted only two children because having more than that they would
really find it hard to raise them financially, so they decided not to engage in any sexual activity
during the fertile time. Same goes with after having two children, either parents chose to
perform vasectomy or tubal sterilization to prevent pregnancy. So, in both instances, are they
considered irresponsible parents? I don’t think so. This area of concern always clash between
the religious belief and personal belief. Again I’m not against the church but by following the
above statement to become responsible parents, you can’t control how many children you
wanted to have.
Finally, I observed that in certain countries where the families limit their children by
using contraceptives, their quality of life is much better and their country is progressive
compared to other countries where using contraceptives is against their religious belief such
as the Philippines.