Posted on 09/25/2009 1:19:31 PM PDT by NYer
Many people, indeed many Catholics, do not see the moral difference between contraception and NFP. “It does the same thing, doesn’t it?” They will often refer to NFP as “Catholic contraception.” What these people need is a brief lesson is Moral Theology 101. And here it is.
In order for a human act to be moral, three aspects of it must be good: The act itself (the “object” or means), the goal or reason for doing it (the “end”), and the circumstances under which the act is done.
The bedrock principle from which all moral reasoning flows is this: “The end doesn’t justify the means.” Another way of saying this is “We may not do evil (means) that good (end) may come of it.”
Let me give an example. Let’s say my mother-in-law lives with us. This makes living conditions crowded. My two teenaged daughters have to share one bedroom. I would like to create a situation in which each daughter has her own bedroom. This is a good end.
What means do I use to achieve this end? I decide to put arsenic in my mother-in-law’s coffee and bury her behind the garage. Bad means. In this instance, my good end does not justify the bad means.
Another example. Same situation. My mother-in-law’s residence in our home is causing crowding with my daughters, and I want to create an uncrowded situation for them. Again, this is a good end.
So I decide to put an addition onto my house, creating an additional bedroom. Good means.
“But,” someone objects, “what’s the difference? Whether you poison your mother-in-law or put an addition on the house, it does the same thing, right? It eliminates the crowded condition.”
Discussion: In both examples above, the end is the same. Yet in the first example, the act is immoral because of the bad means. Moral to the story: Although two means achieve the same end, one means can be OK, while the other one is not. Just because one means is good doesn’t mean the other means is good.
An application: Family Planning. The goals (end) of limiting/spacing births or achieving pregnancy are both good. But there are good and bad ways (means) of achieving these ends. In the case of limiting births, the good way/means is NFP. The bad way/means is contraception. In the case of achieving pregnancy, the good way is intercourse alone or accompanied by technology to assist intercourse (e.g. LTOT). The bad way/means is use of technology to substitute for intercourse (e.g. IVF).
Contraception and IVF cannot be justified (made right) on the basis of the good end for which they are used. They need to be justified in themselves.
The question then is not “Why are we doing this?” but “What are we doing?” In the case of NFP, the couple are having intercourse at a time when they know that their combined fertility potential is not sufficient to achieve pregnancy. Both spouses are fully present to one another. Both are giving all that they are to one another. It’s just that, at the time of intercourse, all that they give to one another is not enough to achieve pregnancy. The marital act is all that it can be at that time.
In the case of contraception, the couple are having intercourse at a time when they know that the combined fertility potential is or may be sufficient to achieve pregnancy. The couple then introduce into the marital act drugs, chemicals, or mechanical devices that make them not fully present to one another. They are not giving all that they are to one another. They are withholding. The marital act is made less than it can be at that time.
But don’t contraception and NFP both involve intercourse without pregnancy? Yes, they do. But, again, the means of avoiding pregnancy are radically different between the two methods. We must remember that it has never been Catholic teaching that intercourse is only licit when the couple is seeking pregnancy. There has never been a teaching of the Church that couples must seek intercourse only when the wife is fertile, and avoid it when they know she is not.
The wrongness of contraception does not lie in the desire to have marital intimacy while avoiding conception. It lies in contraception’s failure to recognize marital intimacy as something sacred, a work of art, something not to be monkeyed with. One does not put a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Although NFP is distinct from contraception insofar as they are both means of family planning, it can be like contraception-and wrong-insofar as the circumstances are concerned. This pertains to avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons. A couple using NFP for frivolous reasons as an excuse for selfishness would be guilty of “the contraceptive mentality.” This doesn’t refer to the desire to space or limit the number of children a couple has, but to the selfishness with which the couple carries out that plan. Whenever the Church has spoken of the legitimacy of family planning, it has always done so in the context of the couple having serious reasons.
NFP, used for serious reasons, is morally different from contraception as a means of family planning. But it becomes similar to contraception when it is used selfishly, without serious reasons.
What constitutes a serious reason? That’s the topic for another essay.
Here's the way I explained it on an old Catholic forum:
NFP CAN BE and often IS used, and even TAUGHT, in a sinful manner. Yet it is NOT and can NEVER be inherently sinful as artificial contraception is so.
NFP itself is NOT inherently sinful, and anyone claiming otherwise is not only misrepresenting post-conciliar but also pre-conciliar Catholic moral theology.
To say that NFP is ALWAYS sinful is just as wrong as to say that NFP is NEVER sinful.
If my "INTENTION" is to bring home enough money to feed my family, that is a good thing. I may get a job, bring home my salary, and feed my children. The job is a licit way to achieve a licit thing.
On the other hand, I could rob a bank and get enough money to feed my family for a whole year. That is an illicit way of achieving a licit good thing.
The same is true for child spacing. If my children would literally starve if my wife were to get pregnant, it is morally licit to space children until I could afford to feed them.
NFP would be a morally licit way to acieve this necessity.
But artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. It can never be morally licit to have recourse to artificiaql contraception.
So to answer your question, the INTENTION in having recourse to EITHER artificial family planning OR "natural" family planning could be illicit or licit. One may be sinsul, one may not.
However, the method itself, in the case of artificial birth control, is intrinsically illicit, i.e. regardless of intent is it gravely sinful.
However, NFP itself is morally neutral. It becomes morally illicit when the intention itself is illicit.
4 main reasons for having recourse to NFP.
1--Physical/ mental health---a pregnancy could kill you or so physically impair you as to prevent your fulfillment of your duties in your state in life---NOT because of a widening wasteline or drooping skin! Or psychological health, i.e., mom would literally have a nervous breakdown if she became pregnant---not because she "just couldn't stand being home with the little kids all day without the personal fulfillment of her professional job..."
2--Financial constraints---your child will starve if you have another. Wanting a bigger house or designer SUV just does not cut it!
3--work on the mission fields by one or both spouses that would proclude having children temporarily
4--active persecution or war---i.e., you or your child likely to die by coercive abortion, in concentration camp, in acts of war, etc.
Clearly we say these reasons must be SERIOUS, not trivial. Only the couple and their confessor can truly decide what truly constitutes grave reason.
We've had couples sit through my talk on this subject and literally say, "Gee, we thought we were being good Catholics just for deciding to use NFP. Now we realize we don't even have grounds for recourse to NFP," then tell us a month or two later they're pregnant.
NFP vs Contraception
Spacing children may be a desirable goal that does not violate God's laws in certain serious situations such as those outlined above. But the means of achieving the goal differ.
One is intrinsically evil (abortion, abortifacient contraception, barrier methods, sterilization) while one is morally neutral (Natural Family Planning.
In one, an act is performed (sex) but its natural outcome is artificially foiled.
In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.
It is then the intention of using NFP that constitutes its relative moral licitness or illicitness.
If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful.
If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.
The difference is real.
Dieting (decreasing caloric intake, the "act" of NOT eating) is a moral and responsible means of losing weight to maintain the body's health.
Bulimia (the ACT of eating, them vomiting) is rightly called an eating DISORDER.
An ACT is performed (eating in this case) and its natural outcome (nutrition) is foiled by expelling the food from the body.
Likewise contraception is a disorder. An ACT is performed (sex) and its natural outcome (procreation) is foiled by expelling the sperm or egg or both (abortifacient contraceptives) from the body.
Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.
But just as dieting can be misused (anorexia) so too can NFP be misused in a sinful manner
The Church teaches the ideal moral behavior. It is very difficult to meet the ideal standard in all aspects of life and very few do here on earth. That said, the teaching about contraception does not have the “prima facie” obviousness of teachings about killing, stealing, adultery etc. The moral logic requires a deep understanding as has been pointed out in this thread. Most Catholics don’t really understand it, or more likely, have not put any effort into trying to understand it.
We all like to think we are moral people. But nearly all of us are failing to meet the ideal in one way or another. But just because the ideal moral standard is difficult does not mean it should be changed to make it easier.
So Self control a few days a month is impossible.for anyone except faithful Catholics?
That explains a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.