Q and A on NFP. Posted on 19th Jun 2009, 11:56am by admin

By Dr Ian Snodgrass.

“Why does the Church teach that using a condom for contraception is an intrinsically evil act?”

Because anything that is used as contraception destroys the nature of the sexual act between husband and wife and is evil for that reason alone, no matter what good intentions we may have. God is our creator and we must always use His design of how we procreate and in that way act in accordance with His will.  This is the study and use of what is called Natural Law.

It’s like following instructions in the designer’s manual.  For example a radio is designed for listening to and should not be used for knocking a nail into the wall. The more serious the matter is, like surgery or flying a plane, the greater the disaster if we fail to follow the manual’s instructions.  Why should it be any different with the creation of human life and the way God has designed this?

“How does the condom rupture God’s design of how we procreate?”
Pope Paul VI answered this very well in his encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, in which he described the design of sexual intercourse as having inseparable “Unitive and Procreative” meanings.

Thus each and every act is designed both to unite the couple in love and in this way to be open to the transmission of life. To accept God’s design indicates what kind of unitive relationship we want with our spouse and how we view the value of life.  Even when our aims seem good, sexual unity that is purposely sterilised prevents God’s design of our part in creation and is therefore evil.

This is not to say that every sexual act is fertile or even that we must have intercourse only if we are fertile.  God has designed fertility and infertility to occur in cycles and we can thank Him as much for our infertility as for our fertility.

“How then should we accept His design?”
Our willingness to co-operate with God means to accept fertility and children as gifts we value and protect instead of a disease we are afraid of and need to control. To follow His laws written in our nature is to live in His presence so we can receive the Grace and the fruits that come from doing His will.

Having intercourse commits us to this fertility, the first gift, and to generosity in raising a large family as Pope Paul VI explains.  A return on the talents we have been given is to accept as many children as we can take care of.  But if there are grave reasons, we can then use our infertility, the second gift, to space or even indefinitely postpone the next child.

“For the same grave reasons that make Natural Family Planning (NFP) morally acceptable, wouldn’t the use of a condom instead be just as moral? How then is the condom any different from NFP?”
Using NFP and using a condom are different acts. NFP uses God’s design while the condom and all other contraceptives rupture it and are evil for that reason alone, no matter what good intentions or results we may have. The act must first be judged independently of these reasons. This is because you can never do moral evil even for worthy goals or consequences.

“Why not?”
If we call evil acts good things to do because there are good reasons for doing them, this would open the door to every evil act, since no one does anything without a good reason. Also if you keep calling evil good, ultimately you would not be able to tell good from evil and the statement, “You can do evil to produce good” will be meaningless.

This is a good time to remind ourselves of the intriguing story of how Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Of how moral evil, the absence of good, becomes an increasing reality for us when we abandon God.

“Is it alright then to use NFP to have a small family or to remain childless?”
No, it is wrong to use NFP to remain childless. If NFP is used only to prevent conception, it is being used as a contraceptive and is as evil as contraception. The Code of Canon Law states, “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children” and a marriage contracted with the intention of remaining childless is held invalid by the Church.

But the Church does not state the number of children we should have.  Factors that might influence this, such as the imbalance between the world’s population and available resources, economic and educational difficulties and changing responsibilities for women in society were recognised in passing by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (on Human Life) in 1968 and in Gaudium et Spes (on the Church in the modern world) which he wrote in 1965.

The Pope however appealed for us to be generous in raising a large family and although marriage is not only for procreation, said that “children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.”

We should remember that every Child we have helped create is destined to see the face of God and should be the first of all the Cs we feel obliged to collect in the social ladder.

The changing role of women in society was also noted in 1930 by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Conubii (on Chastity in marriage) where he described the relationship of the husband and wife as a domestic society.   Being “no longer two, but one flesh” the husband is the head and the wife the heart, partners with different functions yet interdependent and both necessary to the life of the marriage.  As Christ took pains to explain that the leader is the servant, “I am among you as the one who serves (Lk 22:26)”,  it’s about roles, not subservience.

The rightful hopes of women and the needs of society must be subject to the order of the domestic society, which must remain intact. The development of family-friendly work ethics recognises this.  As Gaudium et Spes says, “The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account.”

“Contraception is defined as “(n) the practice of or method used in deliberately preventing a woman becoming pregnant as a result of having sex”.  Would this not mean that the rhythm method or other methods use by NFP would fall under this definition and be at risk of the “contraceptive mentality: loss of respect for women and human life, the weakening of family, and population control by governments? “

The short answer is that contraception and NFP are different acts (CN 22/6/2003).  Contraception ruptures God’s design of procreation and so is intrinsically evil, no matter what good intentions we may have for using it.  NFP accommodates God’s design and correctly used is therefore good.

The difference is implied in the words themselves.  ‘Contraception’ means anti-conception, commonly translated as anti-baby and anti-birth with abortion as the backup – a way of getting rid of unwanted children.  NFP means planning a family, not avoiding one, and prompts the user away from the evils of the contraceptive mentality.

Certainly NFP may be wrongly used as a contraceptive and would then be just as evil.  For example, if we have sexual relations using NFP to deliberately remain childless, we are using it as a contraceptive and putting ourselves at risk of even worse transgressions.  Our willingness to co-operate with God means to accept fertility and children as a gift we value and protect instead of a disease we are afraid of and need to control.

It is important then to understand how NFP should be correctly used.  Our Creator has designed days of fertility and infertility to occur in cycles.  And also designed each act of sexual intercourse with inseparable “Unitive and Procreative” meanings to unite the couple in love and in this way to be open to the transmission of life.

NFP is the way we decipher and use this design to have a unitive relationship with our spouse that values life.  Having intercourse thus commits us to this gift of fertility and to accept as many children as we can take care of.  But for grave reasons, we can then use the second gift, our infertile days, to space or even indefinitely postpone the next child.

Clearly the formation of conscience is essential, as the Pope himself advised, “Another way of weakening the spouses’ sense of responsibility with regard to their conjugal love is that of spreading information about natural methods without accompanying it with adequate formation of conscience.”  (Pope John Paul II’s address on the 20th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae,1988).

Is virginity a thing of the past?
Virginity means not having had sexual intercourse before marriage.  But this question is less about sex being before or after marriage than about how we regard sexual intercourse itself – as essentially procreative or recreational.

Most commonly, the question suggests that it is normal nowadays to have sexual intercourse before marriage to select a ‘sexually compatible’ partner, perhaps after testing several candidates.  Or that pre-marital sex is OK because ‘love’ requires sex, or because it’s impossible to abstain or because they’re going to get married anyway.  And since pregnancy is a complication, it must be prevented or terminated.  So pre-marital sex translates into serial infidelity plus contraception.

As the Church observes, “Most often, in fact, premarital relations exclude the possibility of children.  What is represented to be conjugal love is not able, as it absolutely should be, to develop into paternal and maternal love.  Or, if it does happen to do so, this will be to the detriment of the children, who will be deprived of the stable environment in which they ought to develop …” (Declaration on Sexual Ethics)

Moreover, since condoms may fail 13% of the time and contraceptive pills 8% in typical use (“Family Planning Perspectives”) pre-marital sex may lead further to a forced marriage, a hostile parting or abortion.   Though both lives could be ruined, women stand to lose more – from the social harm as well as from cervical cancer, breast cancer and the post abortion distress syndrome.

The Church’s disapproval of pre-marital sex is echoed in the Bible in both Old and New Testaments (e.g. Lev 21:13-14; 2 Sam 13:2; Deut 22:13-29; I Cor 6:18-20).  Then and now, it is a symptom of a wider disorder that replaces marriage and family with recreational sex, homosexuality, cohabitation and ‘trial’ marriage.  Legal marriage itself may suffer from this deviation and degenerate into a term contract for sex with contraception, childlessness and abortion.

The issue therefore is not just whether sex is for the married or single but about how sexual intercourse is being trivialised as a mere bodily function rather than as a procreative act in co-operation with God.  Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (on Human Life) in 1968 described God’s design of sexual intercourse as having inseparable “Unitive and Procreative” meanings.  Pope John Paul II added this in Familiaris Consortio (on The Family) in 1981,  “… the covenant of conjugal love (is) unique and exclusive in order to live in complete fidelity to the plan of God, the creator.”

It is only within the order and permanence of marriage that we can fully appreciate God’s design of procreation and have the kind of unitive relationship that values life.  Within this covenant, Family Planning means to build a family not prevent one, to have children not avoid them and to abstain when needed to space or postpone the next child.

To paraphrase Dr John Billings in “The Quest”, when we practise this gentle discipline we will be making a magnificent demonstration of our mutual love and our love for our children already born and to be born in the future. Our families will grow in an atmosphere of love, happiness, security and peace which is so appropriate to the rearing of children, each of whom has experienced from birth a father and mother who love them and love each other.