Recently, all hell broke loose (At least, that’s what I call 100+ comments on a small-time blog like mine!) when one of my contributors wrote a post questioning the Church’s position on NFP. Rather than taking the more common stance that NFP puts undue burden on couples and artificial contraception should be permitted, Lightwave seemed to be suggesting that NFP is on a moral plane with certain artificial methods of birth control. I found myself siding with Lightwave, if not with the same tone or delivery, at least with similar sentiment. Neither of us could not understand how NFP does not frustrate "the procreative potential of the marriage act". Furthermore, the arguments that NFP is somehow not a contraceptive because it is natural and involves the omission of an act, rather than the commission of one, seemed spurious. In order to alleviate my ignorance, I’ve decided to find out what the learned teachers and evangelizers of NFP had to say in defense of the practice. I began with Couple to Couple League International (CCLI). They seemed as competitent in this area as any organization I could find. They are well-known and well-respected.
"The Couple to Couple League (CCL) is an international, interfaith, non-profit organization dedicated to teaching Natural Family Planning (NFP) to married and engaged couples. It is essentially a volunteer organization because services are provided by professionally-trained volunteers who are supported by a relatively small staff at the international headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Local Chapters of the organization consist mainly of certified Teaching Couples and Promoters, along with other supportive members."
"When Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching against unnatural forms of birth control in 1968 through the encyclical Humanae Vitae, he recommended that married couples help other married couples with Natural Family Planning. In response, John and Sheila Kippley founded the Couple to Couple League in 1971…"
CCLI, which publishes "The Art of Natural Family Planning" by John and Sheila Kippley, has the following on a page on their site called "Morality of Natural Family Planing".
"First, we believe that God is the Author of nature; He is the one who put together in the marriage act what we call ‘making love’ and ‘making babies.’ It is God who in His providence has allowed us to learn in the late 20th century about woman’s alternating fertility and infertility — and about Natural Family Planning — at the same time that other medical advances greatly increased the population survival rate. NFP allows couples to prudently regulate births without recourse to unnatural, immoral methods of birth control that interfere with the way God designed our fertility."
"As astonishing as this statement may seem, throughout history natural methods have never been less effective than the unnatural, non-surgical methods. (Moral methods may not be as convenient, and they do require self-control, but that is a wonderful and rewarding virtue to acquire, as many NFP couples will attest.) In the 1930s the Ogino-Knaus Rhythm Method of NFP was as effective as the most effective "new" contraceptive barrier methods. In the 1960s, when the Pill launched the Sexual Revolution, the Sympto-Thermal Method of NFP (as taught by CCL today) was as effective as the Pill."
It is worth noting that the dialectic is not NFP vs birth control, but natural versus artificial birth control. "Birth control" is just another way of saying "contraception". This would seem to indicate that to at least CCLI, contraception is not objectively immoral, but artificial contraception is. They wiggle out of the notion of NFP being a method of contraception on their page "NFP vs. Contraception" by defining "contraceptive" narrowly.
"‘Isn’t NFP the same as contraception if a married couple is using it to postpone or avoid a pregnancy that they are not ready for?’"
"The short answer is ‘No.’ The reason is, contraception involves the deliberate frustration of the marriage act; NFP does not. In some ways, that may seem like a small difference, but in reality, the difference is huge and very important."
That’s not how I’d define contraception. Here’s how the American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, via Dictionary.com, defines contraception:
"Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures."
This seems like a valid definition to me. NFP is clearly a contraceptive method that utilizes sexual practices to achieve its goal. I propose that if one wishes to meaningfully classify NFP separately from artificial methods, we need to speak of "contraception by omission" and "contraception by commission". In the former, conception is avoided by abstaining from intercourse during potentially fertile periods in women’s menstrual cycles. In the latter, the purpose of fertile periods is violated by putting barriers, chemicals, devices, or surgical procedures between gametes so that they cannot meet and/or join. More on this later. CCLI continues:
"Traditionally, the Catholic Church has always taught that married couples have the right to ‘plan’ their families, provided this is done in a responsible and just manner, and is done with the proper motivation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:"
"2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (emphasis in original text)"
"So, it is not ‘birth regulation’ that the Church opposes, but selfishness and any immoral means of accomplishing that."
What qualify as "just reasons"? I think this question accounts for much of the discussion in the comments on the previous NFP post. People need clear guidelines and the Church does not seem to be providing them. Under the Old Law, rabbis spoke of putting hedges around the law, that is, setting boundaries stricter than the law itself so that crossing the boundary does not necessarily mean one has transgressed against the Law. Clearly, this can be taken too far, and the Pharisees did just that (Matthew 23:4). True, as Christians we are no longer under the Law. However, as St. Paul pointed out, not being under the Law does not give one free license (Galatians 5). We still need behavioral guidelines to follow. In modern civil and criminal law, a concept analogous to setting up hedges is a "bright line rule". My wife and I, and other faithful Catholic couples, have found ourselves in a quandry as to where NFP’s bright line is. Are our reasons for avoiding conceiving just? CCLI continues:
"The Church teaches us that it was God who made us male and female, and therefore, it was by His design that the marriage act has the dual purposes of the procreation of offspring and the nurturing of love between the spouses. These purposes, designed into the marriage act, must always be respected in order to follow God’s will. When a couple deliberately frustrates the procreative potential of the marriage act through contraception, they are acting against God’s plan and design for marital love. On the other hand, when a couple who have a ‘just reason’ for avoiding pregnancy choose instead to abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time of the cycle, they are not acting in violation of God’s design."
I’m confused. How is NFP not deliberate frustration on the procreative potential of the marriage? By not having sex during fertile times, one gets the pleasures of intercourse with very low likelihood of major consequences, i.e. the responsibilities of parenthood. It’s the "free lunch" that isn’t supposed to exist. NFP is, by its evangelists’ own admission, a very effective means of avoiding conception. If marital sexual intercourse is to be both procreative and unitive, and one deliberately frustrates the procreative aspect, how is that not a desecration of the marital act? How is that "not acting in violation of God’s design"? CCLI attempts to explain:
"Abstaining from the marriage act does nothing to deliberately change the procreative potential of the marriage act because there is no act. Again, it is not a sin to postpone or avoid conception for a just reason, but how a couple postpones or avoids conception can be sinful or it can be virtuous."
True, the individual act is not violated, however, I fail to see how the act in toto is not violated. The pleasurable aspects are enjoyed with no strings attached. It seems to me there would have to be very grave mitigating circumstances indeed for that to not be selfish.
"Author Christopher West addresses the difference between contraception and NFP in his book, Good News About Sex & Marriage:"
"Suppose there were a religious person, a nonreligious person, and an antireligious person walking past a church. What might each do?"
"Let’s say the religious person goes inside and prays, the nonreligious person walks by and does nothing, and the antireligious person goes inside the church and desecrates it. (I’m framing an analogy, of course, but these are reasonable behaviors to expect.) Which of these three persons did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong? The last, of course."
"Husbands and wives are called to be procreative. If they have a good reason to avoid pregnancy, they are free to be non-procreative. But it’s a contradiction of the deepest essence of the sacrament of marriage to be anti-procreative."
I think this analogy is deeply flawed. Here’s the analogy I’d give.
Suppose that there were three people who are called as witnesses in a criminal case. The first person tells "the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The second lies by omitting facts, thereby not telling the whole truth. The third lies by deliberately telling untruths. Which one of these persons did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong? The last one, of course. I’m inclined to believe that the second person is also wrong always, and under every circumstance wrong, though. However, lest someone should triumphantly wave an extreme example in my face in which omitting information under oath is objectively moral, I’ll not press that inclination. I feel safe in saying that, at the very least, one ought to have very grave reasons for ommitting requested information under oath. Should not similar criteria be applied to contraception by omission?
"To put it another way, the Church calls spouses to love each other as they were created in the image and likeness of God. When a couple contracepts, they are deliberately acting to change the way one or both of them were created; i.e., their actions are saying to God, ‘We don’t like your design and have a better idea.’ When a couple uses NFP and abstains during the fertile time, they are respecting God’s design and honoring it by waiting for the infertile time."
I don’t see how NFP doesn’t reject God’s design. When you deliberately avoid having sex during fertile periods, you are, IMHO, effectively saying, "During fertile periods, the human body behaves in undesirable ways. Therefore, I will avoid employing the sexual aspects of that design during times when its natural functions might produce undesireable results." That’s like avoiding the use of your TV or radio during certain hours because there’s too much static. The TV and radio are only doing what they "naturally" do, receive signals in a manner compliant with FCC regulations, but we find that functionality irritating when static is received.
Before I get too worked up over how CCLI presents NFP, I should acknowledge that they are not the only source of information on this topic, and probably are not the best. In order to better understand why the Church teaches what she teaches, I’ve decided go back to the relevant papal encyclicals and discover what they have to say. Then we shall see where the fault lies – the unversal Church, the Church in America, lay representatives (including CCLI), or me.
To that end, I will be posting a series of analyses. The first will focus on the thoughts of Popes Pius XI, and second on Pius XII. The third will be dedicated to Paul VI’s landmark encyclical Humane Vitae. The fourth will look at the teachings of Pope John Paul II. The fifth and final installment will examine the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the USCCB, and various lay organizations, and reexamine CCLI’s statements. This post will serve as a clearinghouse for the others. It will be updated with a link to each post as it is completed. Feel free to comment on what I’ve already said, but please bear in mind that my investigation of the matter is incomplete and that I’m in the midst of "thinking out loud".
Pingback: TheCrockery
I have always heard NFP described as being for use in grave circumstances to space out the possibility of children in a way that is not immoral. If its used to prevent children completely or for non-grave situations, then even NFP would be immoral.
But I have never seen a definitive statement by a high Church authority on any of this. So what I heard is of no greater weight than what you quote from CCL. I have seen the CCL recommended by various people and groups that I do trust, however.
I’ve never gone into it any further than that because I am not married and am in no danger of suddenly coming down all married. So it hasn’t been something I’ve had to worry about.
I think that your analogy of the criminal case is flawed as well. Your analogy can be used for a couple who is already having sexual intercourse during the fertile period. The one who omits facts would be analogous to a man who withdraws his penis just before ejaculation, while the one who tells untruths would be analogous to a woman who take a Pill or has an abortion after conception of the child.
Let me propose a different way of looking at it. NFP or contraception, both have a chance of failing and a child could conceive. The question I want to ask is:
What will happen to the child?
For a contracepting couple, the child is an accident and never intended. Abortion is a likely response, because the child messes up plans for their lives. Even if the child is not aborted, he or she was and is never wanted.
For a couple practising NFP, the child is an accident, but NFP is more than just sexual practices. It is also an attitude that is open to life. The child may be an accident, but it is never unwanted, because the couple is open to life.
On the other hand, to use NFP solely for the purpose of not having children, you are right in saying that it can still be morally wrong, because its sole purpose is not the prevention of conception. When learning NFP, couples are warned against using it for frivolous, selfish or materialistic reasons.
Another way of looking at it is to judge by the fruits. Couples who practise NFP are far less likely to divorce than those who use contraceptives.
Now the question to ask is what Christopher West asks just before that quote in your post: Do you WANT to see the difference (between NFP and contraception)? Many people don’t, because somewhere they intuit that it would demand not just a change of behaviour in the bedroom but the transformation of their entire worldview. If that’s what you’re sensing – you’re right.
🙂
P.S.: I like your blog. I shall start reading it more from now on.
Well, any analogy has its breaking point. My intention was merely to present one that didn’t let the “middle option” off scot free.
How is that to be guaranteed? I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those couples practicing NFP are only doing so to be faithful and obedient to the Church (which is a good thing), but really have the same contraceptive mentality as a couple using condoms (which is a bad thing).
The question I’ve been trying hard to answer is what reasons qualify as “frivolous, selfish or materialistic”? There seems to be a lot of wiggle room and I’m not comfortable with that.
Actually, there haven’t been any credible studies to proves that. I’ll be going into abused statistics like that in the last part of the series. However, even if there was a demonstrable statistical correlation between NFP practice and low divorce rate, correlation does not imply causation. Statistics show that people who own running shoes have a lower incidence rate of heart disease. However, it’s not the ownership of shoes that makes people healthier, but using them while running. It may well be that there is some hidden cause that results in both NFP use and low divorce rate.
Well, you can blame CCLI for not including that bit. 😉 I’ve read that book, btw, and enjoyed it very much. Part of what bugs me is that I think NFP is contraception, albeit the only morally permissable form. I think the dichotmy should be between natural and artificial, not between NFP and contraception. I think false dichotomies like that only serve to confuse people, faithful and unfaithful alike. Also, I think one can quite easily use the methods of NFP without changing one’s worldview. That’s exactly what’s done when secular folks use it and call it Fertility Awareness Method (FAM).
I’m glad you like it. Thanks for stopping by and joining the conversation. 🙂
Okay. I guess that is a problem, if you consider NFP contraception. Let’s try using that definition of contraception from dictionary.com:
“Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.”
I think you’re saying that NFP falls under sexual practices? How about abstinence? Do you consider abstinence as a form of contraception? If so, why? If not, why?
Better than the legal analogy of lying under oath, we should look to the biomedical world, which is after all, what encompasses reproduction and contraception.
In medicine, there is a well-respected (in both Jewish and Christian ethical traditions, at least) tradition of distinguishing between letting nature take its course and actively intervening in a natural process. The former may involve forgoing certain procedures on a patient who is about to die when said procedures would not materially change the final outcome and thus not be worth the pain and effort; active intervention would be something on the lines of (assisted) suicide or euthanasia.
Likewise we can talk about working with the natural course of things(abstaining strategically, and using what comes around in the woman’s cycle as a matter of course) or with actively intervention. Is this a better analogy to hang one’s hat upon?
Hello All,
I just thought I would help to illuminate the discussion a wee bit.
What make contraception immoral is not so much that it enables a couple to postpone pregnancy. it is that…
1) artificial contraception is the UNNATURAL and WILLFUL separation of the natural unity that God created betweeen fertility and unity. It is, chemically or through other means, the sin of ripping apart the natural order God created.
2) In the case of the Pill, contraception is actually abortifacient and results in the destrution of an embryo.
Couples ARE permitted to postpone pregancy, for just reasons (even, as Paul VI noted, for the duration of the married life (c.f., Pope Paul VI, Address to Midwives, 10/29/51). In fact, couples have an obligation to be “deliberate and responsble” about procreation, and avoid the perception that the Church, “supports fertility at all costs, urging couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future (John Paul II, Angelus Address 7/17/94).
However, in spacing children couples must always be mindful of two things.
1) They must be make whatever decision they make prayerfully, “in the sight of God” and as part of an overall desire to seek God’s will and live a holy life (Gaudium et spes #50.
2) They must use only those methods approved by the Church which DO NOT ARTIFICIALLY separate the natural unity between fertility and unity, but rather take advantage of the natural separation GOD BUILT INTO the woman’s cycle.
That’s it.
Now, that said, it is possible for a couple to use NFP selfishly, but that is NOT the sin of contraception. Using NFP selfishly may be a sin against the marriage, and/or against the generosity required of a couple, but it is not, repeat, NOT the MORTAL sin of contraception, which is the willful and artificial separation of the natural order God created in fertility.
If you would like more information about the Church’s actual teaching on these matters, may I suggest, Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation and Defense, by Lawler, May, et. al.
Thanks for reading.
Dr. P.
This seems to be a bit of a leap to me. You seem to be reasoning that the end result (regulation of births) automatically makes the methods that got you there (contraceptive drugs/barriers or abstinence) equivalent. What happened to the “ends don’t justify the means”?
Has anyone invited you over to the Delphi Forums Natural Family Planning board? You might be interested in doing a search over there for “contraceptive mentality” and seeing how that topic has been hashed out in the past.
Plus, we are talking about you. Heh.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/nfptalk/start
I think there’s a real difference there because you are not experiencing the pleasurable aspect of sex stripped of its procreative aspect. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
It’s certainly intriguing and I’ll have to think about it some more. I’m inclined to say it’s not helpful here because it doesn’t address the “something for nothing”, that is, pleasure without responsibility, point.
I’m honored that you stopped by. 🙂 My wife and I very much enjoyed reading “For Better Forever” during our engagement.
This is the kind of sloppy (no offense) use of language that frustrates me: using “contraception” to exclusively mean “artificial contraception”. I have not seen a satisfactory explanation of why NFP doesn’t involve contraception. Nor do I think we need one. I’d be quite content to say that the Church permits contraception by limited means and for limited ends. I do think we need to stop pretending NFP’s not contraceptive at all, though.
As we’ve discussed here before, the abortifacient capabilities of the Pill are disputed. Still, I think erring on the side of caution is wise.
Actually, that address to midwives was by Pius XII. I’ll be addressing that two posts (in this series) from now. The next post will cover Pius XI.
Something I’ve heard in conversations about NFP but do recall reading in official literature is the notion that the contraceptive aspects of NFP should always be used with regret. We should always regret not bringing new life into the world. I’d like to hear that point made more often. It might go a long way to clarifying “serious/grave reasons”.
It’s the “take advatage of” part that gives me pause. If couples had sex whenever the mood struck and didn’t worry about fertility, their children would still be spaced out somewhat by the varying probabilities of conception. I’ve also heard (but cannot verify) that even under the best (unaided) conditions, there’s only about a 1 in 4 chance of conceiving anyhow. It just seems to me that the natural and intended use of married sexuality is to let the probabilities determine your rate of conception for you and deliberately using only certain times of the cycle is like loading dice; it’s cheating. There’s so much talk of NFP being natural and created by God, but wouldn’t God prefer unmolested fecundity?
I belive it will become clear as I go through papal writings that NFP is indeed contraception and that the sin is with artificial contraception or NFP used frivolously. Speaking of which, that’s the main driving force of this series. I wish to know what constitute selfish vs serious reasons to contracept via NFP.
That’s been on my Amazon wishlist for eons. 😉
Thanks for commenting. 🙂
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I did not say that because the ends are the same, the moral values are the same. All I have done is equate the ends. THe means are a separate question and I think I’ve been clear about regarding artificial contraception as sinful.
you’re the first. 🙂 I’ll take a look over there when I have some free time. I hope you’re saying nice things about me. 😉
The question I’ve been trying hard to answer is what reasons qualify as “frivolous, selfish or materialistic� There seems to be a lot of wiggle room and I’m not comfortable with that.
I offered my thoughts on that in the last thread. For my own conscience it seemed to me that a “frivolous, selfish or materialistic” reason would be one that I would feel ashamed to speak to Jesus and the Blessed Mother right to their face. If I couldn’t speak it without shame, then it’s probably one of the above.
That presumes that you have a properly formed conscience which will feel shame when it ought. I’m not saying you don’t, but I’m having a hard time determining if I do and how many other NFP practitioners do. If you don’t know to be ashamed, you won’t be. Know what I mean?
It will be good to see an examination of this issue based on the actual documents rather than just one’s own opinions.
Oh, I don’t know. Try saying it outloud as if you were saying it to Jesus and the Blessed Mother’s face. See how it makes you feel to say the actual words knowing full well that the rationalities we can use to justify ourselves, He can truly see through. If it makes you feel icky to say it out loud, I think that’s a good indicator. Anyone who is capable of finding and understanding this blog is probably formed enough to be familiar with the “ick” factor.
I hope you don’t mind getting the documents and my opinions. 😉
They’re not the only ones I’m worried about, though. I’m thinking of the average poorly-catechized Catholics Joe and Sally Schmoo needing a bright line rule.
Poor catechisis is definitely a problem, but Ithink that’s an entirely different topic!
I am a non-Catholic who recently (November 05) started using NFP. I, too, had been struggling with how Catholics can say it is not contracepting to use NFP. One of the ladies on the Delphi Forums gave an analogy that I thought was helpful. NFP vs contraceptions is the difference between not eating a whole pie because you might get fat, and eating the pie then vomiting it up.
You may be right that there NFP involves a conception of “contraception” as suggest – we do use our bodies’ natural cycles in an effort to limit/space children, and that is technically “against conception”.
But the issue is much larger than the secondary ends of whether to contracept or not(as opposed to the ultimate end – God) – the means, here, are far more important. Humanae vitae recognises this in the way it talks about promoting a life of virtue (aka chastity and abstinence) – we excell in virtues via our practices, as the way we are habitually forming ourselves. ABC forms us habitually into a culture where sex any time and all the time and on demand is ok; Paul VI speaks about the detriments of this mentality on women and men and children – for instance, that children become commodities that must be perfect, because after all we can regulate them and their spacing. We too can have the picture perfect families shown in commercials and films – with one girl and one boy.
NFP cultivates different habits leading to a different way of life and different virtues – its promotion of abstinence, as part of the virtue of chastity, is one of the many habits.
The question of whether NFP should be called contraception is, in my opinion, beside the point. I don’t think it matters whether you call it contraception or birth control or family planning- though you might do well to use the terminology consistent with the official documents.
Whatever you call NFP, it is still fundamentally different from every other kind of birth control (except LAM and total abstinence), in that the couple in question only engage in sexual acts which are oriented towards life. Other forms of contraception are either mutilation of the body, such that a normally fertile body is itself orientated away from the natural processes, or mutilation of the sexual act, such that each act is oriented away from conception. Those two things -not the mere avoidance of birth- are what constitute the sin of contraception. NFP does not do either of those things.
Honestly, though, I’m confused by what you’re doing here in this series of Investigations. If all you’re saying is that we should refer to “artificial contraception” versus “natural contraception” instead of talking about “contraception” and “natural family planning,” then I think you should be more concerned with the logistics of getting everyone to change the bioethics textbooks.
At times, though, it sounds like your concern is not with the terminology (minor point- as long as you establish operational definitions it doesn’t matter what you call something) so much as with the distinction between NFP and the immoral methods of birth control. Which is it? Are you really just trying to change terminology? Or are you actually saying that NFP is contraception and contraception is sin, therefore NFP is sin? (I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but at times it sounds like it.)
But then you say that you want to know what constitute grave reasons- but that is a completely different question from the terminology issue of whether you call NFP contraception, and even a different question from the question of whether there is a real disctinction between NFP use and contraception.
If that’s really what you want to discuss, why not start with what we’re given from the church -that NFP, unlike other methods, is licit for couples with serious reason to avoid conception- and just focus on what the “Address to Midwives” says about the financial, pyschological, and social reasons for avoiding? I guess I just see “what constitutes grave reasons” as a totally different question from “how is NFP different from contraception?” But perhaps the two are intertwined in your mind.
“I think there’s a real difference there because you are not experiencing the pleasurable aspect of sex stripped of its procreative aspect. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
You’re right there, Funky Dung. Abstinence is not contraception because there is no chance for conception (or procreation) to occur.
The word ‘contraception’ is made up of ‘contra’, which means ‘in opposition to’ or ‘against’; and ‘(con)ception’. If there is no chance for conception to occur, as in the case of abstinence, it cannot be considered contraception.
Suppose a couple abstain from sexual intercourse during the period when the woman is fertile. Is there a chance for conception to occur?
Again, suppose a couple have sexual intercourse when the woman is infertile. Is there a chance for conception to occur?
Answering both questions, you have your answer why NFP is not contraceptive – because there is no chance for conception to occur when NFP is used.
On the other hand, artificial contraception is used where conception could take place, but has been artificially prevented. This ‘goes against’ or is ‘in opposition’ to conception, hence contra-ception.
Hope this helps.
Something to leave you thinking: if an elderly woman has reached menopause, but continues to have sexual intercourse with her husband, are they contracepting? I ask, because they are continuing to have the “pleasurable aspect of sex stripped of its procreative aspect”.
🙂
I don’t want to get stuck playing musical analogies, but that sounds more like abortion to me. Artificial contraception could be likened to diet pills and stomach staples.
I’ll get to Paul VI after I cover Pius Xi and XII. Patience, young Skywalker. 😉
I must be doing something wrong because I haven’t experienced a different way of life in practicing NFP.
I’m trying (and evidently failing) to say that in order to discuss the topic objectively, we have to make sure we’re using clear and consistent language. I think the definition issue is a red herring, as you’ve rightly pointed out, but one that needs to be addressed before continuing. Birth control is contraception. NFP is birth control. Therefore, NFP is contraception. Once the linguistic issue is dealt with, the issue at hand is no longer “contraception is objectively immoral and NFP is not” and becomes “artifcial contraception is objectively immoral and natural contraception is not”.
Why is that point so important to me? Because I think it’s crucial to the discussion of why NFP can be morally used at all. I’m just not totally convinced. As a practitioner of NFP, I worry about the morality of it.
They are. I’m beginning to believe that NFP should not be used to contracept except under very rare circumstances. This don’t square with what I’ve been taught, though. From Pius XI to John Paul II, there seems to have been a softening of the criteria for “serious reasons”. I don’t understand why and that bothers me. I want to understand what I’m obeying. As JP2 said, we are given by God by faith and reason, fides et ratio. I’m already acting in faith by obeying the Church. Now I want to engage my reason to understand why I’m asked to obey these certain things.
Have you read the address to midwives? All Pius XII gave were classes of “indication” that might warrant natural birth control. He gives no details whatsover as to whicj instantiations of those classes are licit and under what circumstances. That’s a discussion for another day on another post, though. 😉
“You’re right there, Funky Dung. Abstinence is not contraception because there is no chance for conception (or procreation) to occur.”
Just to make myself super clear, (in case I wasn’t), I was referring to total abstinence, not periodic.
If a couple abstains from sex during fertile because they don’t want to conceive (for good or ill reasons), they are acting contraceptively.
I think I address that in my Pius XI or Pius XII post. I’m almost ready to publish Pius XI. It’ll be up no later than Monday. In brief, though, I’d say that their infertility is beyond their control. There is no fertile period in which to conceive. You can’t abuse what you don’t have.
Apparently, I have to wait 24 hours before posting there.
On an unrelated note, I want to tahnk all of the commenters. I want you to know that I am sincere in my investigations and truly seeking to learn. I’m not just being ornary or deliberately contrary to cause controversy. I apologize if I have been or will be thick-headed, stubborn, and/or obtuse. 😉
I must be doing something wrong because I haven’t experienced a different way of life in practicing NFP.
Well…I guess you must be because I don’t see how it is possible!!
What I mean is that as faithful Catholics neither my wife nor I would have even considered any artificial birth control methods. We’ve been using NFP from the beginning, and far from producing any noticable benefits, it’s been a source of stress for us.
Birth control is contraception. NFP is birth control. Therefore, NFP is contraception.
Sounds like an inductive fallacy to me.
It’s only a fallacy if one of the premises isn’t universal. If birth control is denotatively identical to contraception, and NFP is a form of birth control, NFP must be contraceptive.
It seems, though, that I’ve mangled language much in the way that I complained about. From now on, instead of saying NFP, I’ll try to say periodic abstinence.
For every x in the set of birth control methods, x is in the set of contraceptive methods. Periodic abstinence is in the set of birth control methods. Therefore, it is also in the set of contraceptive methods.
What I mean is that as faithful Catholics neither my wife nor I would have even considered any artificial birth control methods. We’ve been using NFP from the beginning, and far from producing any noticable benefits, it’s been a source of stress for us.
OK but that’s a different issue. Your commenter said:
“NFP cultivates different habits leading to a different way of life and different virtues – its promotion of abstinence, as part of the virtue of chastity, is one of the many habits.â€Â
You are currently in the midst of cultivating those habits and developing those different virtues. No one said it wouldn’t be a struggle!
The repeated mention of “virtues” led me to believe that the commenter felt that NFP engenders positive effects apart from its use as a contraceptive.
Frankly, I don’t really think the struggle will ease until we decide we’re ready to conceive.
It’s only a fallacy if one of the premises isn’t universal. If birth control is denotatively identical to contraception, and NFP is a form of birth control, NFP must be contraceptive.
well there’s your flaw! Birth control is not always denotatively identical to contraception.
The rest of the world would seem to disagree, as demonstrated by definitions in dictionaries. If the Church means something different than the rest of the world when defining contracetion, that’s a problem. You can’t reach people and change their minds until you can speak their language. This is why I spend so much time in the post and the commetns talking about the linguistic red herring. The Church can still defend NFP as a moral practice without insisting that it isn’t a form of contraception. I don’t understand why so many people are stuck on insisting that it isn’t, when anyone can look at a dictionary and see that it is.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that the section in a drug for items of a sexual nature is usually labeled “family planning”. The meaningful distinction is between natural and artificial family planning.
I don’t understand why so many people are stuck on insisting that it isn’t, when anyone can look at a dictionary and see that it is.
A commenter already did this but if one actually look at the word contra and conception there is no way that periodic abstinence can be contraceptive. Sure modern dictionaries may have muddled the whole thing up and that may reflect the incorrect way the language has encompassed any manner of limiting births as being “contraceptive.” However, that doesn’t mean the definition is precise or correct.
For time being (until more of the series is up), I propose to agree to disagree on this point. Would you be willing to accept, though, the notion that sometimes the Church has to use the world’s muddled definitions in order to educate people? If most folks would include periodic abstinence as a contraceptive method, would you be willing to accept that definition for educational purposes?
BTW, thank you for being patient with me. I’m very glad that this thread has not gotten as tempermental as the previous one.
You just wait funky. I’m saving up for something good. 😉
Would you be willing to accept, though, the notion that sometimes the Church has to use the world’s muddled definitions in order to educate people?
Off hand I can’t think of another situation where that was true!
“We’ve been using NFP from the beginning, and far from producing any noticable benefits, it’s been a source of stress for us.”
You are not alone in this! Going back to something posted in the previous thread, while periodic abstinence isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it isn’t universally a good thing, either. I think this point in particular is why your investigation of what constitutes a grave/serious reason is so very important: when a valid reason is present, your abstinence says to your spouse, “I love you and our family enough to subdue my personal desires for everyone’s greater good.” Love always involves a sacrifice. Sacrifice is never easy. But if the sacrifice of abstinence is necessary and mutually agreed upon, it will, as an act of love, bear fruit. In your own words, “patience, young Skywalker!”
“In brief, though, I’d say that their infertility is beyond their control. There is no fertile period in which to conceive. You can’t abuse what you don’t have.”
Okay, I take it that we’re okay with the sexual intercourse during the infertile period, because like you say, you can’t abuse what you don’t have, namely fertility. So that just leaves the issue abstinence during the fertile period, correct me if I’m wrong.
“If a couple abstains from sex during fertile because they don’t want to conceive (for good or ill reasons), they are acting contraceptively.”
No doubt a couple that abstains from sex during the fertile period and a couple that sterilises the act during the fertile period achieve the same goal. But the means of achieving that goal is different, and that means is what makes the difference between NFP and contraception….
…ummm…
Going back to re-read the comments, I realise that you already know that. ^_^
One of the issues you brought up, that seems to be the core issue, is that you “don’t see how NFP doesn’t reject God’s design.”
Let me try to answer that: God designed the human body, in particular the fertility cycle. That is to say, God’s design is more than just man and woman have sex and this leads to new life. God’s design also includes the fertility cycle, which means man and woman have sex during the fertile period, which leads to new life.
NFP discovers God’s design of that fertility cycle and makes the human will to subject to God’s will. Contraception, on the other hand, attempts to subject God’s design of sex (regardless of the fertility cycle) to the human will.
In other words, NFP places God’s will above Man’s. Man is subject to God’s will as Man follows God’s design. Contraception, however, disregards God’s will, completely ignoring the fertility cycle, and places Man’s will above God’s.
“On an unrelated note, I want to tahnk all of the commenters. I want you to know that I am sincere in my investigations and truly seeking to learn. I’m not just being ornary or deliberately contrary to cause controversy. I apologize if I have been or will be thick-headed, stubborn, and/or obtuse. ”
I’m going through a similar phase in the use of Latin during Masses, but that’s totally unrelated as well. 😉
Well, we need to think about what virtue means – virtue is a positive thing because it leads a person toward God. But being virtuous isn’t always easy, and it doesn’t necessarily feel good in the short term (another form of abstinence, fasting, might make the point there). For children, practicing the virtue of love (toward neighbor) in the form of sharing isn’t very easy at the time – but it does help the person become more in line with God’s will.
So – yes, I am saying that NFP engenders positive things beyond any limiting/spacing effects it might have – and that, I think, is evident throughout Humanae vitae and other documents that mention bc. Practicing NFP, as you have since you’ve been married, DOES mean you are living a different way of life than the majority of Americans – and it is forming you to be a different kind of person – regardless of whether you see it on a day-to-day basis or not – and regardless of whether you feel like it’s easy, or a horrendous struggle, or somewhere in between.
Of course it’s a struggle! I think that’s one of the things that demonstrates that it is decidedly different — we WANT to make love to our spouses and we are deciding not to. We are willing to make the sacrifice of marital union in order to respect God’s plan.
Though I haven’t had occasion to comment yet (okay, I’ve had lots of occasion to comment, but have been biting my virtual tongue), I must say that I am enjoying this thread and am hopeful that it, along with the article series, shed some light on my own NFP quandaries. I have struggled for some time with the very questions that Funky poses in his article.
I find I must agree with Funky (and to some degree, Stuff’s analysis) in regard to the challenge, stress, and unexperienced virtue he speaks of. I’ve had a similar experience, though it is at least relieving to be assured that my practice is aligned with doctrine, regardless of my questions.
Total abstinence and periodic abstinence are not the same. With the former, you have no fertility to avoid. With the latter, you do. An infertile couple is not abusing their sexual capacities by having sex during infertile times because every time is an infertile time*. A fertile couple, on the other hand, might be abusing their sexual capacities by having sex during infertile times because they do have the capacity to be fertile.
* I would argue that infertile couples ought to adopt or be foster parents in order to fulfill the duty to be open to life.
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Investigating NFP: Sidebar on Definitions
Frankly, I don’t really think the struggle will ease until we decide we’re ready to conceive.
And that is exactly why using NFP is NOT a case of having all the pleasure of sex without responsibility. Using NFP to try to avoid is itself a responsible act, prone to frustration. NFP users do have to sacrifice, though not in the same way that parents do.
(I’m “Selkie2004” over at Delphi, by the way.)
I come in peace and from the NFP Board on Delphi. Like a previous poster, I am interested in your goals in “Investigating NFPâ€Â. Are you seeking to avoid sin or help others do so by using the “correct†method of family planning, or perhaps none at all? Are you playing a mental game? Are you trying to see if more convenient options should be available to Catholics without their being considered in grave sin? In debating topics regarding the Catholic faith I think it is important to state more clearly to what end the inquiries are being made than you have yet done. One thing that is going to be difficult in particular is to pinpoint the exact location on the spectrum of culpability and conscience formation of every couple who may potentially use NFP or artificial birth control for that matter. I think one of the reasons why a dark line has not been painted on the issue of NFP is that the number of things that can constitute grave reasons for some Catholics encompasses almost every reason. My thought is that the Church has realized that even the most selfish users of NFP are not in danger of losing their souls by that act alone so she has dedicated herself to matters that are more urgent; particularly that of weaning Catholics off artificial birth control. That is just my opinion though and I am certainly open to that opinion being proven otherwise.
Shoot to kill! Shoot to kill! 😉
I faithfully obey the Church in this matter, which is an exercise in faith. I’d to also like to engage my reasoning abilities to understand why the Church teaches what she teaches. This is partly for my benefit and partly for others (including close friends). I, and a few other fools like me, find the Church’s lack of clarity on this issue to be frustrating. It is my intention (as my post states) to, read the relevant Church documents and other materials to determine where the weakness truly lies, universal teaching, local teaching, popularization, or me.
Those are lovely questions to ask after saying “I come in peace”. 😉 If, after reading my post and my comments, you think that I am playing a mental game, I am very sorry indeed. Apparently I have utterly failed to communicate my thoughts in any semblance of a comprehensible manner. As for seeking more convenient options, I am most certainly not interested in that. I do not dispute the immorality of artificial contraception. Nor am I looking to be legalistic and find the minimum level of obedience. In case I haven’t made it clear, my wife and I struggle mightily with this issue (i.e. do we have grave reasons?), so I am seeking to educate myself. I chose to do this education publicly so as to tap into the collective intellect of the blogosphere. Coming back to the beginning of your comment, as I learn more about NFP, the more I fear that the only truly licit birth control, except in VERY grave circumstances, is “none at all”. Like Stuff said in a comment in the last thread, perhaps the only grave situations ought to involve something like being “living in a van down by the river”. 😉
In case I haven’t made it clear, my wife and I struggle mightily with this issue (i.e. do we have grave reasons?),
Once you have that baby in your arms you’ll wonder what all the fuss was about! Maybe even wonder why you waited so long. I know we did.
Funky,
Whether or not all methods of birth control are contraceptive *IS* the issue. If we cannot see that the birth control methods of contraceptive drugs/barriers and periodic abstinence are different, the rest is moot.
No, birth control is not contraception. Yes, NFP is a method of birth control. Your presumption is that if a sexual act which may result in a child is either thwarted or avoided for that reason, conception has been violated. But I ask: if you can’t have conception without sex, how can you have contraception without sex?
The difference between periodic abstinence and contraceptive drugs/barriers is not one of “natural” versus “artificial” in the sense of “paper” versus “plastic”. What makes periodic abstinence natural is that it doesn’t toy with God’s design of the reproductive act. We’re talking “natural” in the sense of “natural law”, not “organic wheat”. It’s “natural contraception” and “artificial contraception” that is the false dichotomy.
I submit that it is the profaning of the sexual act, not the issue of conception that separates NFP from contraceptive drugs/barriers. Whether or not you call abstinence contraception doesn’t change the fact that one of them profanes the sexual act and the other doesn’t.
Suppose you are given a gift. Suppose that during certain phases of the moon, that gift does undesirable things. These undesirable behaviors might be OK under different circumstances, but right now they’re not. To avoid encountering these behaviors, you don’t make use of the gift during certain phases of the moon.
Aren’t you demonstrating dissatisfaction with the gift by not using it when it does undesirable things? Granted, it’s not as strong a dissatisfication as modifying the gift yourself would indicate, but it still seems like dissatisfaction with the design to me.
Lying is offense to truth. One can lie by commission or lie by omission. Either way you’re lying. Contraception profanes the sexual act. One can contracept by commission or contracept by omission.
That’s how I currently feel about the matter. I freely submit that I might not feel that way by the time I finish this series. Cut me some slack until then. 😉