I can understand why some see an apparent discrepancy between practicing Natural Family Planning (NFP) and Artificial Birth Control (ABC). I myself have questioned at times the quasi-contracteptive mentality that can appear under NFP, at least hypothetically, so I appreciate the difficulty some have with the teaching.
Pope John Paul II has rightly stressed the importance of not separating the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. Even though the unitive aspect of marriage may not have been so forcefully taught in the past, that does not mean it is not a genuine outgrowth of the traditional understanding of marriage. In fact, I do agree that it is.
However, the crux of the problem is in the deliberate choice to have conjugal relations during infertile times. I have given this issue some thought in the past; wondering how it could be that the Church promotes NFP, while seemingly leaving Herself vulnerable to the possibility that couples could use it for their own selfish ends - that is, for avoiding pregnancy.
I admit I am not yet firmly convinced of this aspect of the teaching, largely due to my unfamiliarity with real-life examples. In my circle of experience, it is more common to see radical conversions from practicing ABC couples all the way to the desired goal of a complete change in mentality about generosity and wanting to have more children. I have not yet encountered a couple, who have admitted to a change in heart regarding family size, due explicitly to their choice to use NFP. It seems to me that such couples already have an openness to life as a pre-condition of their choice.
Nevertheless, I have learned that the Church's experience with NFP has taught Her the use of the method itself actually helps to bring about a more generous attitude in the couple that uses it. That is, the method itself helps to build virtue.
According to this experience, it is said that the hypothetical state, in which a couple is supposedly using the method to selfishly avoid pregnancy, cannot be held for any substantial length of time. The discipline involved in avoiding conjugal relations during fertile times means that over a period of time, one of four results must eventually come about.
(1) Their selfishness will overtake their openness to life, and they will return to their use of ABC. This is because they are no longer willing to abstain from conjugal relations during fertile times.
(2) They may achieve a pregnancy without deliberately intending it, possibly by having conjugal relations during a borderline fertile time of the woman's cycle. But, because of their openness to life, they joyfully accept the unexpected gift.
(3) Their openness to life will lead them to deepen their love for each other, and they will deliberately try to achieve a pregnancy. This is the desirable outcome that the Holy Father seems to be pushing for the most.
(4) Due to a genuine, serious reason to avoid pregnancy (i.e. medical, financial, etc.) they continue to abstain from conjugal relations during fertile times. Though they would like to have more children, they realize that it would be unwise to attempt to achieve a pregnancy in their current state. They accept this cross, and continue avoiding conjugal relations during fertile times, though they honestly wish they did not have to do so.
So, this is the logic that underpins the Church's insistence on the use of NFP, and why Pope John Paul II promotes it so vigorously. Because, when it is used faithfully, either there is going to be a happy outcome, or else it provides the couple with a means of avoiding pregnancy, when grave circumstances warrant it.
The notion of the couple, who selfishly uses NFP as a means of avoiding pregnancy, is one that cannot sustainably exist over any length of time, because the discipline required to prolong it is too great for any couple of presumed selfish interests.
That was an excellent analysis Paul!
Exactly right. If someone gave money in charity so as to be praised by others he would subvert an other wise good act. Just like those who use NFP but are not open to life.
See further discussion of this issue here.
Paul, over at jcecil's blog you asked a historical question about when the magisterium decided that periodic continence was acceptable to prevent pregnancy for grave reasons. I think it was mentioned either in Casti Connubii (I am not sure I spelled that right) or in a famous set of instructions that a Pope gave to the midwives of Italy. I have been trying to find the reference myself, as I am working on a brief history of NFP. I know that Richard Fehring over at Marquette University has a lot of that material in his office. The first 'how to' books on using the calendar to determine fertile/infertile times were published in 1923 (Japan) 1929 (Austria), and 1932 (USA). BTW, Calendar rhythm has had an undeserved bad rap. It is at least as effective in preventing pregnancy as condoms are. However, I think that the big problem here is that our culture is infected with selfishness and the contraceptive mentality is just one symptom. It is possible to use contraceptives with an openness to life - possible but highly unlikely. It is also possible to use periodic continence (with the intent to avoid or space pregnancy) with a contraceptive mentality.
Mr. Rex,
I am not sure that your contention that selfishness would necessarily cause a couple misusing NFP to turn to ABC is correct. You may be overlooking the continuing power of legalism. It is entirely possible that a couple has a contraceptive mindset, but does not use ABC because they know that the Church has declared ABC to be evil. They want to have contraceptive sex, but they also want to be good Catholics, so they see NFP as a loophole which they can use to achieve both ends. They are willing to put up with periodic abstinence, not because they see it as part of their acesis, but as a sort of hoop they need to jump through to have Catholic sex. This might be very similar to the Pharisees of old. I have no doubt that while the Pharisees scrupulously observed the Law to appear righteous before men, many of them also truly believed that observance of the Law made them righteous. Similarly, there are probably some NFP couples out there with a contraceptive mentaility who will not use ABC but who are not open to life because they see their adherence to legalistic NFP as an important part of their spirituality.
One of the things I noticed in your post and your comments on JCecil's site is how very Latin your outlook on NFP seems to be. I don't think that one should look at the question of NFP as "at what point does this become sinful." Rather, one should look as sex within marriage as the means by which the couple realise, that is make real, the sacrament by effecting a union of body to correspond with the theoretical union of souls. I write "theoretical" because in every marriage, the couple has been given the fullness of the sacrament but I bet that in most cases, they do not receive the fullness of the sacrament.
NFP is one instance of this. If one is deliberately choosing an infertile period to have sex so that the likelihood of pregnancy is lessened, it seems that what we have is a theoretical "openness" to life while in their hearts the couple is contraceptive. Ideally, a couple should not have sex neither for pleasure nor have sex for conception, but only to realise the marriage. Of course, this is impossible to do without being well advanced in one's Theosis, and so the Church does not require such perfection, just as the Church does not require perfect contrition for a sacramental confession to be efficacious and just as the Church's requirements for reception of the Eucharist are comically minimal and in no way approaches the level of preparation one ought to have to receive God. Just because the Church allows NFP as a concession to human weakness, however, does not necessarily make NFP a virtue because not everthing that is not sin is a virtue.
I think that in understanding NFP and sex, one should remember that sex exists for marriage, not the other way around. Marriage is ontologically prior to sex because marriage is the Icon of God's love. Since it is God's love that creates everything and it is God's love that unties creation to Himself, the purpose of sex is to realise the marriage by being fully unitive and fully creative. I bring this up because you (and others) have advanced the notion that "sex for naturally infertile (menopause &c.) couples is still kosher, therefore sex during a naturally infertile time is also not a sin." The problem with this is that it is relativistic, being based upon the assumption that the "fullness" of the sexual act is a function of the particular circumstances of the couple. In truth, all marital sex is by nature procreative because it is sex within marriage, and marriage, as the icon of God's love, is essentially procreative. Thus, an infertile couple having sex with right intent is more procreative than a fertile couple who was using NFP but miscalculated. Whether a child results from any particular sexual act is not what makes sex procreative or not, since the creation of life is done not by the couple, but by the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for reading,
Han Ng