In the post “French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2”, Funky mentions that:
“Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.”
I was inclined by this to comment on that post, but its my hope that others might have input on my thoughts about Humanae Vitae and NFP.
The Church advocates NFP (Natural Family Planning) as a form of contraception (though they don’t call it that). Using this method, couples track the fertility of the female through various methods of empirical measurement (timing, body temperature, the consistency of saliva and other bodily fluids). When the female is in her non-fertile period, only then do they engage in sexual intercourse.
It seems to me that this is a rather unnatural (or artificial) act. I don’t see anything natural about having sex by a stopwatch. One might argue that the unnatural act of the measurements and timing happens before sex, so it is not really related. I find that, however, to be a slippery slope. Just as slippery as “when does human life begin?” is for pro -or anti-abortion arguments.
Others will offer caveats that there is still a possibility of pregnancy with NFP. On the other hand, catholic NFP advocates will also tell you that NFP is more effective than condoms or The Pill. If they make this argument, then they must condone both condoms and The Pill as okay, since they offer a higher possibility of conception.
A few might argue that The Pill is bad just because it’s a bunch of unhealthy chemicals that do mean things to the person taking it. I typically disregard this argument. If the Church is disallowing it on these grounds, then most weight loss drugs should be disallowed, but all this should occur under some other grounds than contraception.
Still others might argue the barrier argument against condoms. This argument states that a physical barrier (a condom, empty space, etc.) is the problem. By this argument, The Pill must be okay, since it posses no barrier, but simply controls ovulation.
Finally, some would argue what I call “The Every Sperm is Sacred Rule” (kudos to Monty Python). By this argument, it’s the frustration and waste of sperm that becomes the issue. However, is this not the case with NFP, where there is little or no possibility of anything but death for the little swimmers? Indeed, the little guys suffer the same fate in any infertile scenario, whether with NFP, The Pill, or natural sex that doesn’t result in pregnancy.
Here the “Every Sperm is Scared Rule” proponents may also site the Old Testament in regard to an individual being struck down for “spilling his seed”. This, however, is generally taken out of context. Onan was ordered by God to have a child with his brother’s widow. Onan started “doing his thing” and then withdrew. The offence was not that he spilled his seed, the offence was disobeying a direct order! If God told Bob to shake hands with Larry, and Bob only bowed, I’d expect Bob to get struck down too!
From my humble perspective, I can’t see how NFP is any better than any contraception method. I use NFP. I support NFP, because I’m following that 2000 years of accumulated wisdom. But I still think NFP IS contraception and is no different than methods such as a condom, diaphragm, or The Pill.
Tom: Ah, you’re speaking against the heart of my argument whey you say “that *means* are what makes the crucial difference.” I guess my point is, I don’t see what the *means* has to do with it. I just can’t see how “re-ordering of fertile-period” by definition “changes the act itself” while “abstinence from fertile-period sex” does not. There’s a leap to a conclusion here that I’m not getting.
Steve: I won’t clutter up my comment with posting piles of long links, just to create a battle of the studies, because that misses the point that its the studies themselves that are incredible. Rob’s comment that “The idea that OC is an abortificant is based on old data.” made my point, there are competing studies out there. This results in the battle of the experts. My point is that without overwhelming credible evidence to one side or the other, the probability is > 0% only if you believe the OC abortificant side. If you don’t believe the non-abortificant side, then you’re likely to believe the probability is 0%.
Funky/Elena: Interesting discussion. But to get back on your original track, Elena, are you saying that lack of orgasm is what makes NFP rightous? It seems to me that the point of NFP is to allow the big “O” while reducing or eliminating possiblity of pregnancy. Isn’t that the same as other contraceptive methods?
Lightwave, so you’re telling me that scientific studies are only credible if one is predisposed to believe them? That itself is not credible. Why are you predisposed, in what you admit is the absence of “overwhelming credible” scientific evidence, that one side is right? Usually when one doesn’t have “overwhelming credible evidence to one side of the other,” one usually holds judgements with some level of skepticism, one does not keep insisting upon 0% probability with black and white moral certitude.
“Elena, are you saying that lack of orgasm is what makes NFP rightous?”
No. I’m just marveling at how you can’t tell the difference between NFP and other forms of contraception when orgasms on demand is clearly one of the big differences.
BV: Let me respond to your questions. 1) I guess my whole point is I don’t see the how contraceptive drugs or barriers can be immoral if NFP is not (hence my statement that I don’t see the difference). I see NFP as just another method of “thwarting”. I’m not so sure “Actively” or passively doing so should make a difference (see my “Matchstick Man” analisys). What I’m saying is that if you believe any one is immorral, then they all should be. If any one is moral, then they all should be. Hence I find the current situation inconsistent.
2) At the moment, I can’t think of why abstainance by itself is objectively immoral, so I’ll have to agree there. However, manipulating the practice of abstinence leads me back to the statements I made above.
I also agree that NFP can be practiced wrongly. But if NFP can be practiced for the proper reasons morally, then I suggest that so can other contraceptive methods.
Steve: What I’m saying is scientific studies can be credible, but when they have conflicting results, the only issue that remains is which study do you believe (to which do you lend the most credibility on an individual basis). Let me be specific: If one believes a study that says there is no evidence of abortificant effects of OC, then one believes the probability is 0%. You’ll just have to accept that I won’t believe your statistical data, and you won’t believe mine.
By the way, if we want to assume I believe the data in your camp, some studies show caffeine is abortificant, but I don’t see a rule for women about not drinking coffee while married and in their fertile years!
Elena: So, by your agrument, could I use a condom with NFP? Now I don’t have “orgasms on demand.”, but I’m still using a condom.
Elena: So, by your argument, could I use a condom with NFP?”
I wasn’t making an argument. I was expressing surprise that you couldn’t tell the difference between having an orgasm and not having one.
And now I’m more surprised.
Why on earth would you want to abstain for a week or so, and then spoil it all by using a condom?
I’m amazed.
I think Elena has hit the nail on the head here. The reason people use, what I’ll call, artificial contraception is for sex on demand without the possible cosequence of(*gasp* oh, God forbid)having a BABY. We SHOULD be having babies, that’s what God made us for! Have babies! Have LOTS of babies! If your house is maxed out with bunk beds(which I’d love to see), park a trailer in the yard. But that’s just my opinion.
Lightwave, you mentioned in your original post that Onan was struck down for not obeying a direct order form God. “God blessed them, saying: ‘Be FERTILE and MULTIPLY(emphasis mine); fill the earth and subdue it.” Gen 1:28. Have you heard that before? I’d call that a direct order from the Big Man:). It’s a good thing that God doesn’t smite peolpe anymore or we may see alot of people bursting in flames;).
My rant for the moment.
Dear Lightwave,
I fear there’s a little avoidance: you haven’t really answered Agree or Disagree on my first question. Whether contraceptive drugs or barriers are objectively immoral by themselves has nothing to do with NFP. I understand they can be compared, but we’re not comparing them yet, we’re just taking a look at them by themselves first. So:
1) Do you agree that the use of contraceptive drugs or barriers *is* objectively immoral? (i.e., that without considering intent or circumstances, contraceptive drugs or barriers can never be moral). If not, then please explain how actively thwarting one of the two ends of sex can be considered moral.
(BTW, it is the answer to #1 that resolves the counter-argument you raise: ‘that other contraceptive methods can be practiced for the proper reasons morally’.)
“Why on earth would you want to abstain for a week or so, and then spoil it all by using a condom?”
More likely, someone would use a condom during fertile times and not during infertile times, thus permitting an additional week or so of sex each cycle. This is advocated by those who call NFP FAM (Fertility Awareness Method). all the same medical science applies. The only difference is that artificial contraceptives can be used fertile times.
A book on FAM:
Taking Charge of your Fertility
It’s a really good book. If you’re Catholic or for other reasons against contraception, just ignore the bits about that subject.
There’s even a cool charting and prediction program you can use:
Ovusoft
Squat: I’ve got no problem with multiplication, but I don’t know that an individual has to be required to single-handedly cause exponential growth either.
But still if NFP is okay for “be fruitful and multiply”, why not a condom for the same purposes and intent?
BV: I guess I didn’t answer the question because this whole dialoge is about me not knowing the answer. If NFP is objectively moral, then why not other forms of contraception? If there’s no good reason, then I say “yes” other forms of contraception are just as objectively moral as NFP. My problem is that I haven’t found a good reason that differentiates them from a moral point of view, so I guess I’m still in the “yes” camp to your question.
“I guess my point is, I don’t see what the *means* has to do with it.”
Because their is a possibility that means can be objectively immoral, their consideration is important. Do you agree with this very simple point?
“I just can’t see how ‘re-ordering of fertile-period’ by definition ‘changes the act itself’ while ‘abstinence from fertile-period sex’ does not.”
When a contraceptive method which subverts the fertility of the ACTUAL ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is employed, their is an ontological change in the nature of the act; it is no longer intentionally left open to procreation. That, I think, is sufficient grounds to call this a “change.” Dig?
With NFP, fertile-period sex is not changed in any way, because you’re not having fertile-period sex! How can you change something that you’re not doing?
“There’s a leap to a conclusion here that I’m not getting”
What’s that conclusion? Where’s the leap?
I’m not getting into the OC issue or the orgasm issue because they are both besides the point.
I think the heart of this argument seems to be what makes contraception immoral, the intention/ends or the means? Lightwave seems to be arguing the intention/ends is what does so (hence he doesn’t see any difference btwn nfp and a condom for example) whereas Tom, Mark, Stuff, and Squat seem to be arguing that it is the means that is what makes contraception immoral.
I think it would be prudent to repeat what Stuff quoted from Gaudium et Spes: “…the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.”
There needs to be an objective criteria rather than intention. Unfortunately for the sake of this argument, the Church does not give “objective criteria” to measure what qualifies as “grave reason” so let’s set that aside for a moment. There are guiding principles (and I’m with Stuff on this one in terms of what qualifies), but there is no set of qualifications (this always qualifies but that never qualifies).
Which can be objectively evaluated? The means. Therefore the means would be the measuring stick, not the intention, to determine the morality (which seems to be the conclusion of the document).
I thought the following article might interest some of you about how Catholics should think about NFP. In particular, I found the following questions interesting, “Why do so many say that NFP is such a good thing?” and “Is it true that practicing NFP can actually help one’s marriage?”
We so often discuss NFP in relation to artifical contraception and rarely ask what impact the practice of NFP can have on a marriage. This article does a good job in at least helping us to challenge our assumptions.
Here is the article. Sorry for the length.
NFP — What should Catholics think about it?
What is Natural Family Planning (or NFP)?
This refers to the practice of achieving or avoiding pregnancies according to an informed awareness of a woman’s fertility.
Is NFP morally acceptable for Catholics?
NFP is only permitted under certain conditions. In addition, if it is used to avoid children, there must be a serious reason for not wanting to have a child. Without these conditions, it is gravely sinful, as Pope Pius XII said.
Can you explain this a little more?
Any act or thing which directly frustrates or stops conception is a serious sin in the eyes of God. This includes all artificial birth control. NFP is not directly sinful because it does not directly frustrate conception. It is not any action or thing. It is simply periodic abstinence; meaning that the married couple refrains from the marital act at certain times. Because of this, NFP must be judged in the same way as abstinence itself.
How does the Catholic Church judge abstinence?
When a man and woman marry, they give over to their spouse the rights over their own body to perform the marital act. In a sense, their body no longer belongs to them but to their spouse. Because of this, it is a grave sin for one spouse to deny the other the marital act when it is requested in a reasonable way. This is a grave responsibility for married couples. Abstinence from the marital act then, including periodic abstinence, can only be permitted in certain conditions for serious reasons.
What are these conditions and reasons which are necessary for a married couple to practice periodic abstinence (or NFP?)
The first condition is that there must be a mutual agreement to abstain from the marital act. If either spouse is unwilling, the abstinence would be forced. This means that one spouse would deny the other the right which properly belongs to him or her. It would be gravely sinful for the person who denies this right to his or her spouse.
The second condition is that there must be no danger of either spouse sinning against chastity, either on his or her own, or with someone else. Any serious danger in this regard is enough to prohibit abstinence, whether periodic or complete. God can never justify sin, even to bring about a good effect.
The simple fact that the two conditions related above do not pose a problem is not reason enough for a married couple to use NFP. There must also be a real and serious reason for doing so. After all, abstinence, whether periodic or complete, is not normal marital life.
The reasons serious enough to allow the practice of periodic abstinence (or NFP) were given by Pope Pius XII. These reasons do not change with time.
They are the following:
# serious danger of health to the mother
# serious problems in the child to be conceived
# very serious financial or social condition
How does a Catholic married couple know if any reason they have is serious enough to justify using NFP?
It’s not enough that the couple themselves believe their condition is serious. They must also have the advice of a good Catholic-minded doctor, if it is a medical question; and the permission of a good Catholic priest nefore they can start practicing periodic abstinence.
Why won’t the advice of any doctor or priest suffice?
Because today most doctors have the contraception mentality. They openly promote artificial contraception (which is always morally wrong), and would have no problem with a married couple practicing NFP for any reason or no reason at all. Many would even consider you as foolish for not doing so.
Unfortunately, the same mentality is often prevalent among priests. Although many do advise against artificial contraception, they often promote NFP without any regard for the conditions and reasons given by the Catholic Church which are necessary to practice it. It is hailed as a great thing for married couples. It is treated as something normal to married life, when in fact it is not.
Why do many say that NFP is such a good thing?
Several reasons. Firstly, they take the stand that married couples today are going to practice some kind of family planning or birth regulation regardless of the fact that it is usually against the law of God. Therefore, to make them avoid artificial contraception which is condemned, they widely promote NFP as the answer.
Also, they claim that a couple’s marital relationship is strengthened by the use of NFP. They even state that most couples claim it has a positive effect on their marriages. However, we often find benefits for the things we want to have.
Is it true that practicing NFP can actually help one’s marriage?
No. Although the practice of periodic abstinence may help some couples learn to respect each other more, and communicate better, it is often gained at a severe price. How many in practicing NFP fall into sins against chastity? How many end up denying their spouse who would really like to make love, simply because it is not the right time of the month? How many times does the practice of NFP put a strain on marriages? Reports and figures are never given to such questions as these.
In addition, the good effects stated above could be gained by the same couples who practice NFP if they would live a normal marital life. This is because sacrifice is built into every marriage. There are always occasions when spouses must refrain from the marital act due to illness, the birth of a child, travel away from home, or any number of reasons. The same occasions for self-control, respect, and improved communications are present for all couples due to the normal circumstances of married life. Despite all its adherents, practicing NFP does not create an improved normal marital life. It is an abnormal practice, which can only be justified in certain serious conditions.
Is there anything else to say about NFP?
Just this; even when a couple has a serious reason to practice NFP, it is not meant to become a permanent way of living. As soon as the condition improves, the couple must return to normal marital life.
Also, it needs to be stressed that couples must not judge their own case by themselves. Especially when it comes to financial situations, couples often too easily justify the practice of NFP. The financial condition must be very serious, and it must be present now, not just foreseen in the future. Often the financial reason is simply used as an excuse to avoid the responsibility of having more children. If couples consult a good priest, they will not deceive themselves, nor offend God.
Many of the difficulties today among married couples which involve the acceptance of having a child, or more children, are linked to a lack of trust in God. We live in a world where we want to control and plan every aspect of our lives. However, there are certain things that we cannot or must not control. Conceiving children is an example. No married couple is in total control of having children, even if they want to. Many would like to and cannot. Others judge that they know better than their good Father in heaven how many children they should have and when. If married couples would only abandon themselves more into the hands of God by living normal marital lives, and trust Him completely, they would find a peace and happiness which only God can give. Our good Father in heaven knows just how many children each married couple should have and can handle. All He asks is our trust to bring about His plan.
That’s an awesome article. Do you have a URL for it?
“permission of a good Catholic priest before they can start practicing periodic abstinence”
I don’t recall getting permission. Eep. :/
Aha! Found it:
NFP — What should Catholics think about it?
Here’s another one:
Answering Four Common Objections About Contraception and Natural Family Planning
Great article-thank you DSA! I think it says everything much better than I could.
WOW! DSA, that’s great stuff. I don’t think there’s much more to say about NFP. God bless you!
DSA, thank you, and Amen!
Funky, thanks for the links, they will definitely come in handy!
Wonderful links – particularly the last one. I run across those objections all the time on line and in real life. Thanks for sharing.
DSA: Yikes, that article just doesn’t see acurate. I’m skeptical about some of the statements in that article. Particularly: “the permission of a good Catholic priest nefore they can start practicing periodic abstinence”. Is that canon? I can’t find anything that would support that in canon. I can say without a doubt that it doesn’t exist in Humanae Vitae either (it sums it up with only “”serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions”).
This seems like an opinon that someone decided to declare as law. Most likely its an extrapolation on Pius XII’s address to Italian midwives in October 1951. JP2 actually seems to speak directly to this point when he said “God the Creator invites the spouses not to be passive operators, but rather ‘cooperators or almost interpreters’ of His plan” in Familiaris consortio.
Off subject, I think its also important to note that he says “the fruitfulness of conjugal love is not restricted solely to the procreation of children…it is enlarged and enriched by all those fruits of moral, spiritual and supernatural life which the father and mother are called.” The typical interpretation of this is, sex is not just about having kids, its about the love between husband and wife too!
Tom: I think you and I are differentiated by semantics. You say with NFP, “fertile period sex is not changed”, I say it is, in that it is omitted. When you say its only bad when “method which subverts the fertility of the ACTUAL ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is employed”, I think we’re splitting hairs. I guess I feel that culpability follows the bullet. In a different case, its not just murder to pull the trigger to kill someone, its also murder if you intentionally remove their body armor prior to being shot that would have stopped the bullet so as to see the same result. The leap I don’t see is the separation of culpability just because there is a time lapse between events.
edey: I’m not sure I entirely follow, but let me say this: I typically reject that means, by itself, is enough to call any act immoral. Since I’ve been using guns lately (too many late night action movies, I think), it is not immoral to shoot a gun at someone. Indeed, there are several good moral reasons why one might do so (say, a just cause). The means is irrelevent. Its, I think, the intended end.
Lightwave
I didn’t post this article as the definitive word on the matter; nor am I suggesting that what is stated need go uncontested. What I found provocative was the author’s challenge of our view of NFP and its impact upon the marital relationship.
No. His comments about speaking to a priest are not canon. To be honest, what I found interesting was the change in perspective that the article brings. We always seem to speak of NFP in relation to artificial contraception and rarely ask ourselves the questions that this author puts forward.
I simply think that there is alot here that could be discussed.
Let’s use an analogy. Say my grandmother is suffering from a terminal disease and is in a lot of pain. As her family members, we wish her to die quickly, so that she does not go through the pain.
But there is a difference between directly killing her and in letting nature take its course.
In both cases, the same end is achieved – grandma dies. But the means are different. In one, we directly take action to make her die; in the other, we allow God to work through natural law.
The same it is with NFP and contraception. In both cases, the parties involved do not wish to have children result from sexual intercourse. In contraception, we directly take action to prevent conception; in NFP, we let nature take its course and have sexual intercourse only when the woman is infertile, in line with natural law.
As for the Pill, it is less a contraception than a mini-abortion. In most cases, the Pill works by changing the wall of the woman’s womb, so that the fertilized egg is able to attach itself to it.
Dear Lightwave,
Although less than resounding, it seems we are agreed that:
a) the use of contraceptive drugs/barriers is by itself immoral
b) abstaining from sex is not by itself immoral (note that this is different from saying abstention is by itself moral)
Having addressed the “objects”, we have laid the first plank in our bridge toward moral evaluation (remembering that moral evaluation depends on object, intent, and circumstances). Yea! 🙂
We can now turn to the second plank: intent. This seems to be the sticking point and the one which is muddying the waters so much that we could barely distinguish it from the “objects”. As a first step, I ask:
Do you agree that it is not immoral to abstain from sex (“object”) with the purpose of avoiding serious danger to the health of the mother (“intent”)?
So that we can make progress, I’m going to ask (and beg) that you restrict your response to my post to this question only (please, please). 🙂 Without this laser precision, I’m concerned we’ll get lost in a fog.
Thank you for your patience.
Skyva: I don’t think your analogy quite works. Indeed the end is the same, but my point is the intent with NFP is the same. In your analogy, the intent is entirely different. With killing her, well, that’s your intent. With alowing her to die naturally, your intent isn’t to kill her.
Again, see my “suicide/accidental death” example. The means are the same (getting run over by a bus), the only thing that is different is intent (i.e. did you intend to get run over by the bus).
BV: I think you misunderstood my response. Since, for the sake of argument, we’ll agree that NFP is objectively moral, then I must say that bariers/durgs *are* also objectively moral. Only if we were to say NFP is immoral, could I say that drugs/barriers are considered immoral. My whole point is that there seems to be no objective difference amongst the methods, so therefore they should all either be moral or immoral. But I think we’re agreed on B. 🙂 Sorry about the fog!
Dear Lightwave,
No problem–if we end up disagreeing at the end of the day, that’d be okay (our discussion has been beneficial I think). My aim, though, is to at least understand why we disagree, and I’m having trouble putting my finger on it.
In your response, I think you might have misread my post: I’m not asking that ‘we agree for the sake of argument that NFP is objectively moral’. (In fact, I don’t believe this is the case.) And at this point in the discussion, I’m not even talking about NFP directly (let’s simplify things by just focusing on abstention). My hunch is that the sticking point is somewhere deeper, so I’m pulling apart the components to figure out which one it is.
It looks like our first plank (“objects”) may not be as sturdy as I thought, so I’ll back up. We appear to be agreed on “B”, but “A” is still in question.
Regarding “A” then, I don’t understand why you think the morality of contraceptive drugs/barriers is determined by the morality of abstention. The morality of each of these acts should be determined by the components of the acts themselves (their “objects”, “intents”, and “circumstances”). Whether one is immoral does not depend on whether the other is immoral. They may both be immoral, but we should be able to evaluate each act separately, since they are in fact distinct. Does this sound reasonable?
If not, we’ll just be stuck in a logic loop: if we can’t look at contraceptive drugs/barriers, and see its morality is determined only by itself, then we have a very fundamental problem.
Thanks.
Lightwave: even if the intended end (say, in this case, avoiding conception for the sake of spacing children) is objectively moral, the means of artificial contraception is immoral. you need to have both (moral intent/end and moral means) for a moral behavior, wouldn’t you agree? the document that Stuff cited earlier (Gaudium et Spes) states clearly that moral motives are not enough: “the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; ” i’m sorry if it seemed like moral means was enough, but my point is that moral intent alone is also not enough.
I’m experimenting with some of the allowed tags, forgive me if my comments look like poop.
BV: Well you probably “don’t understand why [I] think the morality of contraceptive drugs/barriers is determined by the morality of abstention” because I don’t. I think that the morality of NFP and other methods are the same. Thus if we can determine one (say the morality of NFP), then we have determined the others.
When you say “The morality of each of these acts should be determined by the components of the acts themselves (their “objectsâ€Â, “intentsâ€Â, and “circumstancesâ€Â)”, I agree, but I think my point is that essentially, the objects, intents, and circumstances can be applied the same to each contraceptive method. For example, one could use a condom with the same intent as NFP.
Hopefully this gets us out of a loop 🙂
edey: Gaudium et Spes does say
but it doesn’t go on to say that “means” are the other half of the equation either. All it says is that it “must be determined by objective standards.” My read of that is: “rather than giving you moral rules to follow, it would just be easier for us to give you an approved list.” While this is within the authority of the Church, it doesn’t give me the least bit of guidance as to why NFP is any different than other forms of contraception. I suspect the only reason is that because NFP is significantly more dificult to implement, its less likely to be abused. That argument doesn’t work for me though. As an example, one could say that using pain killers are too easy to abuse, so lets declare them bad. But the use of pain killers are not bad, its using them the wrong way thats bad.
The bottom line is, I don’t believe “means” can be moral or immoral. I think what makes them such is only by applying intent to them.
Funky: Hey, where’d my photo go?!?
Lightwave, you need a Morality 101 course…
I tried to post this earlier when the comments are down, but you are making a huge mistake here:
Since, for the sake of argument, we’ll agree
that NFP is objectively moral…
There is no such thing as an “objectively moral” act, which is to say an act that is morally upright irrespective of the motives behind it. Or if there is, there is at least no human agency to define such a category. Any act CAN be immoral if done for the wrong reasons.
The bottom line is, I don’t believe “means†can be moral or immoral. I think what makes them such is only by applying intent to them.
Here you are saying explicitly that no act can be objectively immoral, for an act is objectively immoral if and only if it is immoral irrespective of the intent or motive. So this assertion flat out contradicts the explicit 2000-year unbroken teaching of the Church, including your quotation from G&S, and common sense to boot. I admonish you: This is heresy.
Now everyone agrees that both abstinence and contraceptive sex CAN BE engaged in for the wrong reasons, making either of them immoral. And hopefully everyone sees that abstinence and contraceptive sex CAN BE engaged even for good and just reasons. Motives or intent therefore tell us nothing of the difference between abstinence and contraceptive sex. Motives or intent for any act can be just or wicked. They are simply a nonstarter in this discussion.
The difference between abstinence and contraceptive sex lies inn (in and only in) their intrinsic natures. It is not objectively immoral to abstain (tho’ it could be immoral on a case by case basis, depending on intent). It is however objectively immoral (i.e., irrespective of the motive) to defeat one or more of the natural ends of sexual intercourse.
You are conflating two distinct moral issues: 1) licitness of motive to limit or space births, and 2) licitness of behavior in contraceptive sex). Then you add to this confusion a bald heresy about objectively immoral acts (which is that they don’t exist). This conversation has gone on long enough, Lightwave. You have about 15 people screaming truth at you from every conceivable angle and you still persist in this grave error. You have stepped far beyond a mere attempt to reconcile Church teaching. At this point, one may only conclude that you are a) stupid (which I doubt and why on earth would a stupid person bring this up?), or b) that you are willfully ignorant and care little for putting your faith at risk.
Later
Steve: You’re getting philisophical on me (with a theological twist), but allow me to respond:
I don’t think you are applying an incorrect meaning to “means” or “an act” when you say
Let me use an example. Usually when I ask someone to name an act that is objectively immoral they say something like “murder is objectively immoral”. Indeed, murder is immoral, but murder is not an act. Murder is an “end with intent” usually after applying “an act” or “means”. In this case, killing another person is an “end”. Running over a person with a vehicle is the “means”. Assuming this is done without recklessness or intent, its at best “accidental death,” which is not immoral. If it’s done with intent, only then does it become murder.
I challenge you to supply an actual “means” or “act” that is objectively immoral. If you choose to do so, I’m betting I can show that the its really an “means-intent-end” combination. Those can be objectively immoral, and that’s why we’ve given them names like “murder”.
This is precicely the issue I raise with NFP (a “means”). I find that if one were to apply the same “intent” (and perhaps “end”) to other forms of contraception, I find it hard to understand how they could be considered immoral.
Steve: I don’t think Lightwave disagrees so much as he/she is pointing to a different issue which we haven’t addressed directly.
I think Lightwave is saying: “If my intent is to not get pregnant, then what does it matter whether I use an IUD or simply abstain?”
We’ve responded by saying: “Well one of those actions is always immoral (IUD), and one of those actions is not always immoral (abstinence).”
This, of course is true, and Lightwave may well agree, but he/she is saying it doesn’t address how the intents in his/her mind are still the same, and therefore the moral characters of the two actions are still the same.
This, however, is only partly true, and where I think the sticking point is (I think I’ve finally found it!). “Not getting pregnant” is not an intent in itself. You have to ask why you don’t want to get pregnant: Is it because you want to experience the pleasure of sex but don’t want the possibility of a kid right now? Or is it because you know that a pregnancy would seriously threaten the life of the would-be mother?
If it’s the former, the intent combined with either act (IUD or abstinence) results in immoral. If it’s the latter, the intent combined with abstinence is moral, but combined with an IUD is still immoral. That’s because use of an IUD is objectively immoral.
And this is where I differ from one statement Lightwave made in the last post, namely, that no act is objectively immoral in itself. While I agree with the murder analogy presented, I believe that some acts are objectively immoral. An example would be fornication (sex between an unmarried man and woman). There are no intents that make this act moral. (There may, however, be circumstances which impact the degree of evil or culpability.) Similarly, there are no intents which make use of an IUD moral, because an IUD actively thwarts one of the two ends of the sexual act (namely, procreation).
In contrast, sexual abstinance is not objectively immoral. (Otherwise single folks would be in a heap of trouble.) 🙂 Instead, the morality of abstinence is determined by the intent and circumstances. In the circumstances of married life, sexual abstinance is immoral unless there are grave (in the gravest sense of the term) reasons (a.k.a. intent).
So, I guess my point to Lightwave is: “not getting pregnant” is not a complete description of intent. It’s the reason why you don’t want to get pregnant which separates moral NFP from immoral NFP. When that reason is grave (as outlined in Humanae Viatae) NFP is moral. If there is no grave reason, NFP is immoral.
Correct, killing is NOT objectively immoral. Murder is objectively immoral, but only because evil intent is ascertained. Correct.
But there ARE objectively immoral acts. We’ve been talking about a good one: contraceptive sex. Another one would be rape. Sodomy, the forced kind and the consensual kind. Larceny. Masturbation. Lying under oath. Torture. These are actions that are objectively immoral (not of course all equally grave), which is to say immoral irrespective of the reasons behind them.
Now as to sexual abstinence versus contraceptive sex, I’ve already admitted that intent does NOT distinguish them. They can both be undertaken for licit and illicit reasons. A point on which you seem to agree, and in fact is the basis for your entire argument. But the argument doesn’t hold water because the ONLY THING that distinguishes them is objective action. (“We Believe in the Resurrection of the Body.” Ergo objective actions ARE important, and may occasionally be the only thing that separates a well-intended sin, which is sin, from a well-intended virtue, which is not sin. Maniecheism may be popular, but it is still heresy.)
You seem to be looking for a magic rationalistic formula here, and there isn’t one except for thinking with the Church on this issue (and all issues) and obeying. You seem to be doing the latter. The former will come in time (assuming a practiced obedience). It is a process. The will is master of the intellect. Faith is allowing our will to be bent by God’s grace, not necessarily (and quite rarely) in having our intellects be convinced.
I’m not saying that the Church has no reasons for teaching what She does on this matter. She does have reasons, very good reasons. And these reasons are bound up together in an intricate (and beautiful to those with eyes to see) moral and social tapestry. If you don’t accept those reasons, i.e., if they are unconvincing, then the problem is with you (not with your brain, but with your will), and you yank on the threads of this tapestry only at your own peril (and of those who might perchance be weak in faith).
Everyone keeps talking about intent, means, ends and all that other philosophical crap. what I would like to know from lightwave is: What was YOUR intent in posting this article? Are you REALLY searching for the TRUTH? Are you trying to see how far you can go without “breaking the law”? I guess what it boils down to is this: Are you trying to get to heaven, or just stay out of hell? If it’s the latter, than I say you are no better than the millions of “cafateria catholic” that plague the world today! I’m sorry if I’m being hostile, but I’m tired or your plugging your ears while shouting “la-la-la” attitude while you have friends who are trying to look out for your soul. DSA gave you a GREAT article to read and pray over and all you come back with is “Is that Cannon?” Don’t be such an ass. How much of the Catholic FAITH(meaning:believing with out proof) is based not on Cannon but Tradition?
I think you’re being a little unfair to Lightwave, Squat. I think I know where he’s coming from because I feel similarly. He’s a faithful Catholic who’s obeying the Church’s teachings regarding contraception. However, he doesn’t feel he really understands or appreciates those teachings. That is, he believes that NFP is used contraceptively and wonders why the Church says that’s not the case.
If you are using NFP to avoid conceiving children (as opposed to any marital benefits it purportedly engenders),you are contracepting. You hope to not conceive. I know that’s why my wife and I use it.
Where’s the distinction from artificial methods? The intent seems to be the same – to frustrate the natural end of sexual intercourse.
Barrier methods do it by blocking the gametes from meeting. Chemical methods do so by either preventing the production of one kind of gamete or making the uterus inhospitable to gametes that have joined to form an embryo (i.e., a chemical abortion). Surgical methods (i.e., various types of abortion) do so by killing the end products (children).
NFP variants do so by restricting when intercourse takes place.
The sole difference I can see is that NFP requires periodic abstinence, whereas the other methods allow for intercourse at one’s convenience. Periodic abstinence may or may not be a desireable spiritual practice, but it may be performed irrespective of contraceptive use or non-use, so it is a red herring. What we are left with is the fact that the means of contraception seems to be the chief differentiating factor.
Since it does not kill children, NFP is morally better than chemical and surgical methods of contraception. Then again, condoms don’t do that, either. One might argue that NFP is better than condoms because neither gamete is inhibited. Tell that to the sperm that have to swim through cervical mucus that’s hostile to their presence. The chance of fertilization taking place is about the same for NFP and comdoms. Just ask any NFP evangelist and they’ll tell you how effective it is at avoiding pregnancy.
So, here we are, back to the point that NFP is natural, i.e., involves no artifical and/or inorganic interruption of the process from coitus to birth. IMHO, that only makes it apparently less immoral than artificial means, not objectively moral. This seems to be an example of the “appeal to nature” fallacy. It’s natural, and the other methods aren’t, so it must be better. Why? What is so inherently moral about this method that the Church does not condemn it, even though the intent is the same as that for artificial methods?
These are the questions that Lightwave seems to be asking. I think he is right in doing so. The important thing to remember before launching into a hissy fit and calling people bad Catholics, is that Lightwave and I are faithful Catholics who are obeying the Church and seeking to learn more about our faith. How can the second part be bad in light of the first?
I am sorry for the insults. I will not post on this topic anymore. I am getting too heated about this. Mea culpa.
Funky: “The sole difference I can see is that NFP requires periodic abstinence, whereas the other methods allow for intercourse at one’s convenience.”
Sterility (due to age or natural causes) also allows for intercourse at one’s convenience.
The sterile person is 100% sure that sex will not lead to pregnancy, so sterile spouses must be extra careful not to use their sterility with contraceptive intent.
Fred
The only way I see around that, Fred, is adoption.
Also, an infertile couple is not culpable for their infertility. On the other hand, when a fertile couple deliberately limits intercourse to times when conception is a vanishingly small statistical anomaly, they are culpable for that.
So I’m on my way home from work today and I call the house, only to hear Squat say, “I did something really bad.†Funky – remember the baby seals? Yeah, he didn’t clear that one with me either. Next I diligently type out a lengthy comment that I’m sure everyone will find edifying, and as I’m about to publish, my **angelic** 15-month old hits the power button. So here I am, retyping my entire thesis in Word so I can at least save progress and hopefully copy and paste when I’m done. I apologize in advance both for the length and any glitches that occur during transfer.
I’d like to start by kind of summarizing how I perceive we have gotten to where we are. My take on the gist of the original post was that NFP-as-contraception was something supported by Church officials and teachings. I hope we’re all agreed at this point that, while this practice is definitely prevalent among faithful Catholics, it is not in any way endorsed or condoned by Church Authority.
Likewise, I think we’ve also shown that the Church’s teaching on the necessity of procreation in the context of marriage is tempered by the call to responsible parenthood – hence the allowance of any method to be employed toward the end of spacing births (i.e. not achieving pregnancy for some amount of time). I also hope we’re all agreed that for the Church to mandate that all fertile married couples MUST MAKE BABIES NO MATTER WHAT would be stupid and tyrannical. We’ve also shown that the circumstances under which a couple would refrain from pregnancy is a subject that’s up for some serious (and beneficial) debate, and one that can ultimately only be determined between each couple and God.
So we’re down to the question of the means, as Funky concluded. Maybe this is why I was asked into this conversation in the first place. I’m going to try to look a little more deeply into what differences exist between NFP and various methods of artificial contraception, and hopefully such an analysis will shed some light on other questions and be of some ultimate use. Please note that I do NOT promise to be free of bias.
I’d like to start by looking at why exactly the Church says NFP is morally licit. The following is from the Catechism: “These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.†(see CCC2370)
Easy enough to say, but how so? Working backwards, the idea of “authentic freedom†can be addressed by the fact that NFP requires that both spouses not only accept the method, but fully agree to it and cooperate with each other toward its end (to achieve, or not to achieve [pregnancy], that is the question). The responsibility must be equally shared: the wife must be diligent in charting, and the husband must be completely ready to be turned down or to turn down (otherwise you’re either facing a situation of rape or, with mutual consent, not really practicing NFP at all). For this mutual cooperation, I feel that a baseline of strong trust and respect of other is a necessity, which leads into the next point.
As far as “encouraging tenderness,†I feel that this comes about by virtue of the fact that communication about procreation and where a couple is going in general is prompted at least once a month: the spouses feel amorous one night, they pull out the chart and see that they really shouldn’t if they don’t want a baby. Immediately the question, “why not?†is staring them in the face, whether they address it every time or not . Procreation is a very difficult subject to broach for many couples, and being forced to at least consider it, if not really hash it out, at least once a month, is more healthy than not in my humble opinion. And this communication helps deepen the spouses’ understanding of each other’s motives, goals, etc., which is a key to deepening tenderness. This is a reason quite often cited to show that NFP is healthy and formative in a marriage.
Finally, there is respect of both bodies (which are, after all, temples of the Holy Spirit created male and female in the image and likeness of God). This is essentially the “natural is better†argument that everybody poo-poo’s. But I argue that this is not your typical homeopathic, take some herb/root, rub some plant/animal oil somewhere natural. This natural is the simple observation of what goes on in a woman’s body whether you bother to look or not, while leaving the man’s body the way it is and exactly where it’s supposed to be.
WHEW!
Now let’s look at artificial contraception with respect to the same criteria.
Sterilization: involves cutting, burning, or otherwise removing/deforming a part of the human anatomy, usually permanently. Obviously not respectful of the body, closed to the option of conception ever. (That’s the easy one)
IUD: Not respectful of the woman’s body, as it involves inserting a foreign object (may or may not be medicated) into the uterus with the express intent of causing inflammation of the uterine wall, thus preventing implantation. Risks, though rare, include but are not limited to perforation of the uterus and severe bacterial infection. This also falls into the category of abortion according to the Church with respect to morality. (also pretty easy)
Barriers (condoms, diaphragms): I’m not extremely well-versed in the safety of the diaphragm (I assume there’s some increased risk of infection due to the need for insertion), but for the most part these do not impart any lasting physical damage as far as I know. These, however, do go against the idea of “total gift of self,†as well as not fitting (in my mind), with the ideas of tenderness and authentic freedom. Full responsibility for the contraceptive act rests upon only one half of the couple, which can put undue strain on the relationship. Also, should it fail, it’s easy for the one not using the barrier to play the blame game and make it all the other’s fault.
Chemical Contraception (the pill, patch, Depo-Provera, etc.): Again I feel this method places too much responsibility on just the woman, leaving room for the man to blame her for doing something wrong should it “fail.†It is also not respective of the woman’s body due to the number of physical changes it can produce (side effects include but are not limited to: life-threatening blood clots including stroke, diabetes, depression, weight gain, decreased libido). What tender husband would let his wife risk a stroke or pulmonary embolism, no matter how small the risk?
I’d also like to state that, while it’s completely possible for a couple to have a healthy, loving relationship with mutual adoration and respect to use and not abuse artificial contraception, the same fail-safes that are built into NFP are not present with other methods. My personal opinion is that the other methods leave more wide-open avenues to things like deception, dishonesty, manipulation, and abuse. As examples, a spouse who is “ready†but is afraid the other isn’t can simply poke a hole in a barrier or “forget†to take the pill. A husband insistent that his wife start on the pill can belittle and berate her for her sudden moodiness and blame her for the subsequent extra pounds she puts on. Either party can more readily cheat since there is little chance of an extra-marital pregnancy. And again, the blame game is always a possibility should a method fail.
I’d like to emphasize again that the above observations/opinions are by no means definitive, nor universal (i.e. just because a couple uses NFP doesn’t mean they won’t cheat), and that I do not claim to speak for the Magisterium. But I do hope that at least some of this is helpful and will further this discussion in a positive way.
I am SO SORRY for the length!!!
Funky: “Also, an infertile couple is not culpable for their infertility. On the other hand, when a fertile couple deliberately limits intercourse to times when conception is a vanishingly small statistical anomaly, they are culpable for that.”
This discussion would have benefited from a closer examination of the text of Humana Vitae, which draws on the ancient principle of permitting intercourse between infertile spouses:
“With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
[note that the intention not to have children is not absolute, but limited to a certain time OR to an indefinite time – absolute denial of fertility during the whole marriage is not permitted]
–
The reasons for having recourse to infertile times are pretty broadly defined:
“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”
[note that HV does not say that NFP is OK only when the method is so poorly applied that its results are uncertain. To the contrary, HV proposes NFP as an effective method for achieving the totality of goods within marriage]
To all: forgive me for the length, I have a lot to respond to.
BV: Before I begin, if you’re pretty frustrated with me by now (how could anyone not?), I’m honestly not trying to be contrary, just calling it like I see it. By the way, thanks for being the only one (that I remember) with a point-of-view contrary to mine who hasn’t bitten my head off so far. 🙂 This is by no means an invitation to end the conversation, rather I just wanted to make it known that I do understand how frustrating it can be to reason to this extent. I’m quite aware that I can be wrong, and hoping by way of exploration I can either get support for my understanding, or get an alternate understanding that I feel I can support. I’m not ready to give up yet!
I’m still not convinced that any act is objectively immoral. Even in fornication, the act is Sex, which I think from our previous conversation that we can say that sex itself is not immoral (the means would be with someone outside of wedlock, the end would be pleasure). Unfortunately, this is where the philosphers and theologins will begin to argue about what parts constitute intent-means-end.
You’re right, not getting pregnant is not an “intent”, its part of an “end,” the real “end” being “pleasure without getting pregnant.”
So that being said, I’m sadly right back where we left off last: NFP or IUDs are both means, and I don’t think “means” can be objectively moral/immoral.
Steve: As I stated above to BV, even though Rape is objectively immoral, it is not an act. Sex is the act, as one can not unintentionally Rape another (except in some cases that are so exceptional, I won’t go into them here, but in those cases intent would not attach at all).
I do agree to your statement that intent, as applied to contraceptive sex, is (at least partially) determinate of its morality. But I don’t follow the purpose of your application of the quote “we believe…” You probably have a few theological legs up on me. Can you help me understand what you mean?
I do, however, reject the “just obey the Church” explanation. I already do that! Faith? Got that too (I think), hence the obedience to something I don’t understand. I think even the Church is not in the position of desiring to lay down rules or laws without basis. Indeed, with this rule, it is often cited that there are moral implications.
Let us not also say, then, that if one is to disagree with the Church on a teaching, the problem is with the individual. The Church has reversed its teachings on more than one occasion (but never with Dogma, some doctorine, and infalible statements). So if I’m broken today, we both retain our beliefs, ad infinitem, and the Church were to change the teaching tomorrow, would I instantly be fixed, and you be the broken one? Even the Church agrees that some teachings are failable.
Squat: I know things can get a bit heated. I’m sorry that you won’t be continuing with us, I can certainly use all the input I can get. Allow me to respond to the rest: I am indeed seeking the Truth (or I’ve at least convinced myself that I am.) This isn’t about how close can one get to the line without crossing it (i.e. your heaven/hell analogy). In this case, I think the “line” is in a blurry state, and should be focused (i.e. the teaching on a moral issue seems inconsistent to me.)
As to DSAs article, it may be making statements based on tradition, but its no tradition I’m aware of. What bothers me about the article is it claims to be offering the rules the Church teaches, but the information seems to be fabricated. If there is one conservitive fabrication, I must consider the entire document suspect, and be wary that there may also be liberal fabrications, and thus discard it entirely.
Funky: Thanks for elaborating on my point. Its nice to know that though you may or may not agree with my perspective, there’s someone who doesn’t think I’m completely off my rocker.
Stuff: The second half of your comment essentially analyzes methods of BC in relation to the theories you propose. I won’t take on the analysis, since I don’t agree with the theories they’re based on, so let me take the theories point for point:
You say:
I can only agree that if we play semantics with the meaning of contraception. The encyclicals mentioned above specificly say that it may be used to delay pregnancy or spacing births (that’s why we talk about “grave reasons”). If delaying pregnancy isn’t contraception, I don’t know what is. By the way, I can use a condom to delay pregnancy or space births. Isn’t that contraception?
You also say
Yes! I agree. My previous comments on intent…yada yada 🙂
You then say:
Okay, so if I do all that, but use a condom too, then is it still okay?
Finally,
I’m afraid that I must, as you say, “poo-poo” this. I find no acceptable evidence that nature is better. Indeed, we don’t say nature is better when we take “unnatural” medicines to fight disease rather than letting our natural systems (often unsucessfully) deal with it. On point, drugs to increase fertility are considered completely licit by the Church, so I don’t see how “nature is better” can have anything to do with the moral argument.
I don’t disagree with everything you say though. You do say “the same fail-safes that are built into NFP are not present with other methods.” I agree here, and my current thinking is this is the sole reason for the inconsistency with other contraceptive methods. The problem here is that the “fail-safe” idea is also inconsistent with typical Church teaching. Indeed, the Church doesn’t teach that “thou shall not use a gun,” but rather “thou shall not murder your fellow man.” In this sense the Church seems to typically teach based on morals, using specific cases as examples. With NFP, though, it just seems to pick methods and label them.
Dear Lightwave,
Thank you for your kind comments. I have to admit, I have been a bit frustrated at times, 🙂 but I realize that you have a sincere interest in examining this issue and finding a satisfactory answer. I think you’ve raised a not-so-inconsequential point, and while I hope we can resolve it, even if we can’t I believe our exchange has been beneficial, at least it has been to me. I must also commend you for your calm handling and stick-to-it-tiveness, while trying to keep an open mind.
Regarding the issue of objectively immoral acts (which I think is an important factor in our discussion), you replied that you’re still not convinced that an act can be objectively immoral. I wonder then, what is it that makes fornication (sex between an unmarried man and woman) immoral if not the objective facts themselves?
As an aside: In your explanation, you’ve drawn a distinction between the “act” of sex, and the “means” of outside marriage. I’m not sure what use this distinction is. When evaluating morality, there’s: what you did (a.k.a the “object/act/means”), and why you did it (a.k.a. the “intent/end/purpose/reason”). [See comment 50.]
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that people can fornicate with good intentions. What, then, makes it immoral?
Lightwave,
I do have more to add…eventually. I want to take this chance to thank you for this post because it has definitely brought to light some important issues that otherwise get ignored. I’m not giving up either, but this topic has required just so much of my time, thought, and prayer, that (especially on work days) it has been taking a toll on ye old pregnant, nauseated body. The kids don’t particularly care for it either (see my previous comment about the power button). I work today (which is why I’m posting before the sun is up 🙁 ) and I won’t be posting again for at least a day or so. Baby and I need some time to rest. thanks in advance for your patience.
Lightwave,
It is curious how you summarily dismiss the article. Pius XII and Pius XI before him both spoke about abstinence in the way the the article puts forward. In regards to speaking to a priest about the practice and its spiritual implications, one doesn’t have to look too hard to find in the traditon of the Church reasons for doing so. It seems to me that many priests are also formed by the culture and have a contraceptive mentality – perhaps many priests would not make an effort to help a couple properly discern such a delicate spiritual issue. They promote the practice without offering any counsel about how and in what spirit it is to be embraced.
The author’s point that “we often find benefits for the things we want to have”, I think, is insightful. Perhaps we resist looking at how we practice NFP because we don’t want to see the flaws in our thinking and behavior.
DSA, BV, Stuff: Thanks for responding. I was about to make a post, but I was strugling to make coherant(sp) statements. Apparently my fatigue (long day) has altered the consistency of my brain such that its not that different from the coco-wheats my daughter had for breakfast, even at this not so late hour. I hope you’ll forgive me for not responding at this moment. After a bit of sleep I’ll be re-reading your posts in the hope of comprehending better.
Lightwave,
I certainly believe that such open and frank discussion can be a very good thing. In fact, one might say we have a responsibility to know and understand our faith to the fullest extent of our abilities.
Yet, sometimes all the conversation seems as though it becomes an end in itself – an intellectual exercise that is disconnected from the person of Christ and the mystery of the Cross – where faith ceases to inform and illuminate our understanding. Some of Squat’s comments above, while perhaps spoken in frustration, seemed to express the same concern. As I have said in a comment on a previous post on liturgy, intellectualization can be a powerful defense and a very fun one at that. We can spend great deal of time talking about such matters, many very important matters worthy of our consideration, and even point to the astute observations of theologians and popes to add weight to our perspective. However, behind all the chatter and along with all the important and even valid judgments can reside a powerful resistance to embracing the far more challenging truth – the self-emptying and self-sacrificing love of Christ crucified – the love that Christ has for his Bride the Church It is this love that must form our judgments and that must be the measure of our actions and behaviors. What light do these realities shed on our discussion of NFP, abstinence, and the relationship between husband and wife? What limitations might they reveal in our thinking?
Ah, its amazing what a few hours of sleep will do for you 🙂
BV: I think your two statements/queries in reply to me are connected. My essential reason for the distinction that fornication is not an act (nor is contraception). Fornication is what we call the result of the intented end (sex for pleasure outside of wedlock). Contraception, or preventing conception, is the intended end of another act (taking a pill, or wearing a synthetic/natural material). The acts (sex, swalloing pills, wearing a material) cannot be construed as objectively moral or immoral, they are simply acts. When I say “an act” it is very similar to saying “means”.
To break this down more simply, think about all the requirements you have to call something fornication. If sex is always fornication, then would could consider fornication an act. However, I’m sure you would say sex is not always fornication. Indeed, you must apply both circumstatial and intentional qualifiers to say sex is fornication.
To tie this back to my original point, its clear to me that contraception is not immoral, since the use of NFP to “space” pregnancies is not immoral. I consider this to be clearly a method used to intentionally prevent (or delay for a time) conception, hence contraception. If contraception is the “intent” and another similar act (i.e. using a condom) with the same intent and end is engaged, then I don’t see how that can be considered immoral.
Stuff: I’m sorry to hear you’re too busy, but I look forward to any other posts you might find the time for.
DSA: You say:
I’m afraid you’ve abstracted the issue past my ability to follow you, even after sleep. I’m sure one could draw a countless number of connections between “NFP, abstinence, and […] relationship[s]”, and “the self-emptying and self-sacrificing love of Christ crucified.” Can you elaborate specifically on the connection(s) you are proposing?
Lightwave,
No. I think you have missed my point. It is you, I believe, that have “abstracted” the issue – pulling it out of and away from any connection with Christ and his Cross. How might we discuss these question in light of his outpouring love and complete gift of self?
How can the self-emptying, self-sacrificing love of Christ crucified ever be considered an abstraction??
Perhaps now would be a good time to note that in today’s reading from Hosea, when God said that he would take Israel as His bride and Israel would know Him, the word for “know” in Hebrew is the same that is used for sexual intercourse. God promised to become “one flesh” with humanity. Indeed, Christ is the bridegroom Israel was promised and He has taken the Church (the new Israel) as His bride. Every time we partake in the Eucharist, we celebrate our nuptial union with Christ. He withholds nothing from us, and we receive His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » It’s All About Who You Know
Having said what I did in my previous comment should not put an end to the discussion. Here is an article from a woman who is struggling with the issue precisely in the light of Christ’s love. She is deeply rooted in her faith and offers a critique of a certain view of providentialism. Some good insights I think. Here’s the article. Sorry for the length.
Abusing NFP
by Kathleen van Schaijik
Janet Smith’s recent talk at Ave Maria College, “When is it Moral to Practice NFP?” gave a cogent objectivist argument that Natural Family Planning may be licit in a broader range of circumstances than many Catholics think. But, the sympathies of the crowd seemed to be providentialist.(1) Many who were present clearly regard NFP as morally dangerous. One woman scoffed out loud at the absurdity of newly weds imagining they could have serious enough reasons for postponing children. Another person proposed that since most women are fertile for 20 – 25 years, 8 – 10 would appear to be the “default number” of children per family–at least for couples married in their early 20s with no fertility problems. In other words, the fact that so few Catholic families have that many children is a good indication that NFP is being widely abused.
Though she is certainly not one herself, and though her talk was framed as a refutation of their position, I fear that much of Dr. Smith’s talk might have been taken as encouraging to the providentialists.(2) For instance, the concrete examples she gave as potentially legitimate reasons for practicing NFP were mostly rather extreme ones: a serious health problem, joblessness, a retarded or handicapped child who needed an exceptional amount of parental attention for a year or two. She mentioned the instance of a couple she knows who practiced NFP for a year so that the wife could finish law school, but she treated it as a somewhat doubtful case. Perhaps it was legit, perhaps not. She wasn’t sure. She also spoke of the moral duty of spouses to have children–giving aid and comfort to those who hold that unless there are definite obstacles intervening, each couple ought to be having children at more or less regular intervals from the beginning of marriage for as long as they’re fertile. And, when an astute member of the audience asked whether she perceived any “danger from the right” in this discussion–namely a kind of pharisaism among the providentialists–Dr. Smith gave a humorous, but emphatic No in reply: “Generally couples who make an error on the side of having too many children are too busy to do much damage.”
Dr. Smith has spent decades of her time and gallons of her spiritual lifeblood fighting contraception, so it is easy to sympathize with her affection for big families, and her reluctance to say hard things about providentialism. But, still, I wish she had given a more forceful response to this very insightful question. It is bad to leave an impression that the only harm likely to come from providentialism is a few superfluous babies. (If it were, how could we speak of a problem at all? Who can bear with patience the idea of “superfluous babies”?)
No, the real problem with providentialism is something very different; something deep and far-reaching–going, in fact, to the innermost heart of our Faith. In brief, providentialism represents and perpetuates a false view of human sexuality, of marriage and of the Christian moral life–a view that malforms consciences, grievously burdens families, and misrepresents the Church to the world.
Serious charges, I am aware. Please bear with me while I explain.
First, let me repeat a key distinction, helpfully enunciated by Dr. Smith in the course of her talk. There are two critically different kinds of providentialists, which in shorthand we may call personal providentialists and theoretical providentialists. The problem I am speaking of is only with the latter. It has nothing at all to do with those spouses who, taking into prayerful account the unique inward and outward circumstances of their married life, freely and generously open themselves to as many children as come to them.(3) In fact, I’ll even grant gladly that the Church has a “preferential love” for such families, just as she has for the poor. (What Catholic heart can resist them?) The problem is not with these, but with those who “add to God’s law” by seeking to impose an obligation on all married couples that is not to be found in the teachings of the Church, viz., that unless prevented by nature or emergencies, all married couples ought to have large families; and, correlatively, no couple should make use of NFP, except in very rare cases, and then only with sincere regret and extreme caution.(4) (NB: This kind of providentialist can be found among priests, teachers and single lay Catholics, as well as married couples. It is not unknown among college students.)
What does the Church really say?
The teaching of the Church with respect to family planning is straightforward, clear and easily summarized.
1) Spouses must be willing to accept children lovingly.
2) Spouses may not practice contraception.
3) Taking into consideration a whole range and variety of factors, including physical, economic, psychological and sociological factors, spouses may do well to practice Natural Family Planning to space children and/or limit family size, provided that they do so with due moral seriousness–with a generous, responsible and prayerful sense of what they owe to God, to one another, to their children and to society.
That’s all.
The theoretical providentialists wish there were more to it than that. They wish they could find quotations in Humanae Vitae to support their view of the matter, as, for instance:
# “NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”
# “Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”
# “Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”
# “Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”
# “The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”
Theoretical providentialists would like to find such statements in Church documents, but they can’t. They are not there, because the Church does not want them there. They are not there because “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.” The Church lays on each married couple the solemn responsibility to discern well for themselves, and on all of us the solemn injunction against presuming to know what is right for others. She resists going further on purpose–not because there are so few people willing to hack the rigors of real Christianity, but because real Christianity is, precisely, freedom.
The chronic temptation of pharisaism
Salvation history can practically be summarized as God’s tireless endeavor to liberate His people from captivity, in the face of our persistent, self-destructive hankering after slavishness.
In the Old Testament this hankering manifested itself in various ways, including, among others, a tendency to adhere to the letter of the law while offending against the spirit of the law; or in confusing external conformity to the law with inward righteousness; or in imagining that “piling on” the dictates of the law should be counted as “going the extra mile” religiously and morally.
In the New Testament the preference for being “under the law” can be seen in the Pharisees’ rejection of the good news. Exemplary adherence to the law of Moses was the core of the Pharisees’ personal identity, as well as the basis for their social stature. When this law was super-ceded by Jesus’ proclamation of mercy for all, it meant that the Pharisees were no longer exceptional. They were, in truth, no better than “those others”–the tax collectors and prostitutes, and everyone else whose righteousness depended utterly on God. It was intolerable. They preferred the law that established their superiority.
After the death and resurrection of Jesus, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the spread of the gospel among the gentiles, the same tendency reasserted itself in new forms. Very early on in the life of the Church, some Jewish Christians insisted that gentile converts be circumcised, while others held that circumcision was no longer necessary. The controversy grew so intense and divisive that it prompted the convening of a kind of pre-Vatican Vatican council, and the dissemination of the first “proto encyclical” of ecclesial history. Here is what it said:
“We have heard that some of our number without any instructions from us have upset you with their discussions and disturbed your peace of mind….It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, not to lay on you any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union.” (Acts 15: 24-29, my emphasis)
Thus, from the beginning we see the Church using her authority to minimize rules, maximize freedom, and reprimand those who burden and confuse the consciences of the faithful with teachings that “add to the law.” (Paul’s letter to the Galatians is an elaboration of this theme.)
Generalizing for brevity’s sake, we can say that the majority of the heresies condemned by the Church (Donatism, Pelagianism, and Jansenism, to name a few) have been rooted in a similar principle. They follow a pattern: A portion of the faithful get carried beyond what is required in the practical application of their religious zeal; they resent and condemn the perceived laxity of the wider Church; they are reprimanded by authorities for their unwarranted severity; and they are so appalled and indignant to find the Church on the side of their opponents that they condemn the pope as apostate, and declare themselves the remnant of the true faithful.
Nor is this base tendency confined to the extreme instances of outright heresy. It is a perennial spiritual plague within the Church, as well as in the private dramas of our own souls. In every age, and in various ways, we are tempted to reject the freedom given to us in the Holy Spirit, and place ourselves under laws of our own making. We resist authentic freedom for two reasons:
1) Because it is so costly. We do not like to bear what C.S. Lewis calls “the weight of glory”–the overwhelming demands of our vocation to live as sons and daughters of the Most High God. (It is much easier to adhere to a law than to become holy.)
2) Because a law gives us an objective, external measure of our superiority over others. (This is an extremely pleasant thing to have.)
I will not hesitate to say that I think theoretical providentialism is a modern manifestation of this age-old evil. Rather than “rejoicing with joy” in the freedom that has been granted to married couples in our age–a freedom divinely calculated to meet the peculiar challenges of family life in today’s world, and a freedom not enjoyed by couples past, whose only licit means of limiting child birth was total abstinence–they want to clamp down, impose restrictions, and dramatically narrow the range of married liberty. Unconsciously, they are allying themselves with the Pharisees.
The face of pharisaism
The alliance between the Pharisees and providentialism becomes clearer when we note that classical pharisaism is characterized by especially two features: externalism and judgmentalism–both of which are prominent in theoretical providentialism.
The externalism can be seen in several ways:
# In the talk of “default numbers’ of children (as if we were not given the Holy Spirit, and called to discern God’s perfect will for us as unique individuals.)
# In the idea that a couple’s generosity can be measured by the size of their family, as opposed to the depth and completeness of their inward gift-of-self (something God alone knows.) In truth, it is perfectly possible that a given mother of two is more generous than a given mother of 12, just as the offering of “the widow’s mite” in the Gospel was worth more than the lavish offerings of the wealthy man.
# In the reduction of “serious reasons” to the objectively measurable categories of financial or health crises (as if “subjective reasons” such as stress and depression are nothing but smokescreens for selfishness.)
# In the very notion that anyone standing outside the intimate, sacramental bond of a marital union is in a position to determine whether or not NFP is justified in their case. Only the spouses have that capacity, that privilege and that responsibility. Not even a priest is capable of determining what’s right for them. He may advise; he may help them overcome perplexity; he may undeceive them of an error in their thinking. But in the end, the judgment about how they should exercise the rights and duties of their vocation is exclusively their own.
The judgmentalism shows up in the tendency theoretical providentialists have to heap scorn on married couples who practice NFP, accusing them of being sensualists and materialists who are rejecting the cross and compromising with the world. I have known providentialists (even unmarried ones) who do not shrink from interrogating married couples about their intimate lives and their reasons for using NFP–as if it were their place to “admonish the sinners.” I understand that they mean well; they think they are “speaking the truth.” But it is nevertheless inexcusably impertinent.
To those who may find themselves speaking or thinking this way: “I see that couple over there. They were married at 23; they are now 40, and yet they have only four children. They have a large home, two nice cars, blooming health. Quite obviously they had no serious reasons for practicing NFP. What faithless Catholics! What compromisers!” I beg you to note how perilously like the “righteous man” excoriated in the Gospels you sound. “O Lord, I thank Thee that Thou hast not made me like that couple over there; I thank thee that I am one of the few who serve you truly by having (or planning to have, once I am married) even more than the default number of children!”
Thinking this way is bad enough, teaching others to think this way is worse. It burdens and disheartens exactly where the Church is working most to bless and encourage: marriages and families.
So, if not law or “Providence” what should guide our “family planning”?
To the question: “When is it good to practice NFP?” There is only one perfectly true answer. It is this: “When love calls for it.”
Love is the meaning of life; the meaning of marriage; the meaning of human sexuality. It is (or should be), both explicitly and implicitly, the source and reference point for all our acts and judgments within marriage.
If a man notices that his wife is exhausted and overwhelmed, it is love in him to suppress his desire to embrace her sexually. (To insist on his “conjugal rights” at such a time would be an act of unlove.) Or, if a woman sees that her husband is being crushed by a too-heavy weight of responsibility, then it is love in her to put aside her longing to have another baby, and wait patiently for a better time. Or, if devoted parents notice that their children are suffering from too little attention, then they may, out of love, discipline their desires in order to be better able to attend to their education. Or, if a husband recognizes in his wife an extraordinary vocation–to teach, say, or to law–then he may, out of love, urge her to complete her studies before the duties of motherhood become consuming, so that when the call comes to use those gifts, she will be ready.
Or, on the other hand, if an NFP-practicing husband and wife have been apart for a long time, then they may, for love of each other, decide that their reunion at this moment is more important than their reasons for postponing a new birth. Or, though a couple may be suffering serious financial and other difficulties, their love of life, their joy in their children, and their confidence in God’s providence may be such as to make all obstacles seem like nothing in comparison with the gift of another child.
This is the way marriage is supposed to be–a fully free, fully conscious and responsible participation in the self-forgetting, self-donating love of the Holy Trinity. At times, and according to the unique and unrepeatable “illative sense”(5) of each married couple, this love will call for the conjugal embrace. At other times it will call for sexual abstinence. For some couples it may mean that NFP never enters the picture. For others it may mean that NFP becomes a normal part of married life.
In sum, the Church’s teaching is divinely designed to help us realize and increase our potential to live in the Image and Likeness of God.
Conclusion
To those who are bewildered by the mass of conflicting arguments and testimonies on this issue, I can only urge you, read Humanae Vitae; read Love and Responsibility; read Marriage: the Mystery of Faithful Love. You will see how unlike the providentialists the Church is!(6) She is not severe and condemnatory. She is, like her Lord, full of tenderness and mercy. She is not frowning on married couples the world over. She does not load us down with crushing demands, but carefully restricts her laws to the minimum necessary for our holiness, and then “stands back” and delights in the revelation of the fathomless diversity of the faithful response to the sacramental grace of marriage.