When I started writing about
NFP, it was from the standpoint, basically, of “something is wrong with
NFP”. There were a couple of things to
do with methodology – the lack of modesty associated with the teaching of it
and even the practice of it; and the apparent failure of the movement generally
to address the fact that NFP is to be used only for “serious reasons”. When
these points are brought up to NFP promoters, the debate degenerates into a
serious of clarifications and straw-man arguments. NFP promoters say: - NFP
is licit, and anyone who argues against the use of NFP is a dissenter at
best, a heretic at worst.
- NFP
is not the same as contraception, so there is and can be nothing sinful in
it.
- Only
the couple themselves can decide, after “prayer and discernment” whether
they have a serious reason to postpone conception.
But these are not, in fact, the
important issues, because in reality, these are not the issues that lie beneath
the intuition of many faithful (and usually traditionalist) Catholics that
there is something wrong with the NFP mentality, the NFP “way of life”.
The issues listed above can be
dispatched quickly:
- I
agree that NFP is licit; that does not mean it is required, nor does it mean it is virtuous.
- I
can agree that there is a difference between contraception and birth
control; NFP, technically, may not be contraception, but it is certainly,
unequivocally, birth control.
- The
“conscience” argument can be refuted on a number of points; however, for
the sake of argument, and to make the point that there’s something wrong
with NFP, let’s simply allow any reason to stand as valid. I’m not arguing about precise
definitions of “serious reasons”; I’m aiming to show that there is
something inherently wrong with the promotion of intentionally sterile sex
as a means of birth control.
The issue lies more with the
attitude underlying the promotion of NFP. Take, for instance, the USCCB’s expressed
desire that every diocese have an NFP program, and that all couples seeking to
be married in the Church be required to take an NFP course. Are the bishops
assuming that every married couple will have serious reasons not to welcome all
the children God desires to send them? Consider also a program called “The
NFP-Centered Parish”, which is problematic in its very name: why would we want
a parish to be centered on a method of regulating births that should be used
only for serious reasons?
There is good reason to believe
that such an attitude reflects the Church’s attempts to become more “modern”,
to address the current issues in secular society, and to appear as a compassionate
Mother who takes into account Her children’s trials and tribulations, rather
than a Holy Mother who insists on certain standards of behavior, on a
willingness to sacrifice, that will get Her children to Heaven. Pope Pius XI
saw the dangerous potential of artificial contraception entering the Catholic
world when the Protestants hesitantly allowed its use for their own
congregants, and he promulgated Casti
Connubii in order to combat it.
But not too long afterwards, with
the world (especially the US) clamoring for “population control”, and with
women seeking more and more to have jobs and careers outside the home, and with
financial affluence becoming more attainable and therefore more desirable for
many families, the question became, “How can Catholics limit the number of
babies they produce without violating Church teaching?” Indeed, the “Majority
Report” of the Papal Commission that was convened to discuss the issue of birth
control was of the opinion that Church teaching on this issue should be
changed. And of course, the outcry and the dissent waged against Humanae Vitae and the upholding of
Church teaching against contraception made it clear that in the US, Catholic
theologians and clergy had been convinced that the large Catholic family should
become a thing of the past.
Pope Paul VI made some dire
predictions – all of which certainly seem to have come to pass – regarding the
consequences of artificial contraception being loosed on the world. General
moral decline was one of those predictions, and there can be no doubt that that
has occurred. And really, that moral decline focuses largely around the issue
of sex – and mostly this concern with sex revolves around a perceived “right”
to engage in the sex act without having to worry about the naturally-intended
consequence of that act: the conception of a child. Divorcing procreation from
the pleasure of the sex act has resulted in a perceived “right” to have sex in
whatever way one chooses: pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual “sex”.
And talk of recognizing the “legitimacy” of sex with minor children and even
animals has become far from rare in the media. Society today is consumed with
the apparent need to talk about, and engage in, sex.
Before things reached their
current state of moral corruption, though, Catholic theologians were trying to
figure out how to ensure that married couples could engage in the marital embrace
without having babies. And today, the moral disasters of the secular culture
notwithstanding, the Catholic world can also be said to be divorcing
procreation from the sexual act itself. Only, in the Catholic case, we call it
“natural”.
I don’t think NFP is “natural”;
I think it’s a concession to concupiscence and (typically) an excuse to limit
the number of children a couple “chooses” to have. “Natural” would be a married
couple loving each other and expressing that love in the conjugal embrace
regardless of whether that happens on a “safe” day. “Natural” would, in most
cases, mean a large family. We need more of those!
