A lengthy, but hopefully productive (no pun intended), reflection on natural family planning...
6/23/2003 2:34:47 AM
There have been some interesting back-and-forth about natural family planning (NFP) in the Comments section of my recent post on the Theology of the Body. This isn’t surprising since NFP continues to be a controversial topic among Catholics—even, I would emphasize, among very orthodox, practicing Catholics (we’re all familiar with those folks who say, "I’m Catholic, but I don’t agree with the Church’s stance on artificial contraception" and "NFP is just a Catholic contraceptive").
My hope here is not to answer any and all questions about NFP (and I don’t pretend to be an expert on the matter), but to make some observations and open it up for your comments.
A reader asked the following: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Theology of the Body is tied in with NFP promotion. Is that right?"
Yes, that is correct, for the reason that Humanae Vitae and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body make reference to natural family planning; the former implicitly and the latter more explicitly (more on that in a moment). Folks such as Christopher West and Dr. Janet Smith do talk about both and see them as intimately connected, and I believe there are good reasons for doing so, starting with the fact that they are placed together by two pontiffs.
The reader further commented, "From what I understand, NFP is only supposed to be used for grave reason with emphasis being placed on the fact that children are always blessings from God, and God would not send us unsupportable burdens. This is not how Janet Smith or Fr. Hogan or CCL ‘market’ NFP. (If you give me some time, I can produce some particular quotes I find bothersome.)" I, for one, would like to the quotes in question. In the meantime, here is a section from Humanae Vitae that does support the reader’s initial comment:
"Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.
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.
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church" (HV, 10. Emphasis added).
Finally, the reader says the following: "So what do these folks say that I disagree with? They say/imply that NFP is a positive good in and of itself and that every Catholic couple in the course of their marriage will practice NFP and by doing so strengthen their marriages. I believe this is seriously wrong and has a host of serious repercussions."
Here is where matters become a bit more complex. Dr. Smith and others do state that NFP strengthens marriages and that those who practice NFP rarely divorce, have happier marriages, and so forth. So, is that reason enough to use NFP?
First, I think the evidence for these claims of Dr. Smith and others is solid and that the points have validity. The problem that may occur is people getting the impression that using NFP is necessary in order to be a good Catholic and to have a great marriage. I don’t think that is what Dr. Smith and others are saying, but I can see how people might get that impression. However, the context of the talks and articles of Dr. Smith and Christopher West and others should be taken into consideration. They are trying to reach, for the most part, Catholics (and other Christians) who are using artificial contraceptives and 1) don’t realize the dangers, 2) don’t understand Catholic teaching, and 3) don’t realize there is a safe, moral, and successful alternative. But I do not believe that those promoting NFP in this way are saying it necessary. If they do, they are wrong, because NFP, as good as it is, is a method—not a dogma—that can help some people to better follow Church doctrine and be more responsible parents.
I personally know more Catholics who use NFP to become pregnant than to avoid pregnancy (my wife and I practiced NFP for several years seeking to become pregnant and never used it to avoid pregnancy). And all of these Catholics readily acknowledge that NFP can be used improperly; the honest person recognizes that this method can be abused and can be used with a contraceptive mentality. The Holy Father understands this as well, and has addressed this possibility. In an address to the Centre for Natural Fertility Regulation on February 27, 1998 he cautioned against using NFP for selfish reasons: "Continuing in this vein, the great Pontiff [Paul VI] rightly emphasized the ‘essential difference’ between contraception and the use of natural methods in exercising ‘responsible procreation’. It is an anthropological difference because, in the final analysis, it involves two irreconcilable concepts of the person and of human sexuality (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 32). It is not uncommon, in current thinking, for the natural methods of fertility regulation to be separated from their proper ethical dimension and to be considered in their merely functional aspect. It is not surprising then that people no longer perceive the profound difference between these and the artificial methods. As a result they go so far as to speak of them as if they were another form of contraception. But this is certainly not the way they should be viewed or applied. On the contrary, it is only in the logic of the reciprocal gift between man and woman that the natural regulation of fertility can be correctly understood and authentically lived as the proper expression of a real and mutual communion of love and life." ( "Marital Act Must Be Total Gift of Person" . March 11, 1998).
I think some people focus so much on NFP as a technique that they forget its goal: to ascertain the natural reproductive cycles. This is, in essence, what Pope Paul VI states in paragraph 16 of Humanae Vitae:
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.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process."
