Does the Church Require Natural Family Planning?

The old axiom about blog writing became evident last week when I wrote “The Effectiveness of NFP”  The axiom states the number of people who read a post is inversely proportional to the amount of time the author in writing it.  I never dreamed that the piece on the 99% figure would generate so much attention - I figured only math geeks like myself would find any interest in it.  Nevertheless, there must be a certain amount or providence at work, because this morning an advertisement for an NFP introductory session appeared in our parish bulletin.  The short blurb contained the following statement:

“This [NFP] is a must for Christian couples who want to live in harmony with the teachings of the Church” (emphasis original).

If the 99% myth is one of the more prominent misconceptions, then so too is the double myth that (1) the Church requires the use of natural family planning, and (2) using NFP automatically leaves one in “harmony” with the Church.  In order to understand these two misconceptions, let’s revisit what Humanae Vitae actually said.

Let’s look at paragraph 14,

“We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.  Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary ... Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.  Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these ... Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

We deduce two important conclusions from these paragraphs.  First, the Church prohibits the use of any form of contraception: from abortion to sterilization to contraceptive intercourse.  Second, doing so constitutes grave matter and is “intrinsically wrong.”  Grave matter is one of three necessary aspects of a mortal sin, the other two being full knowledge and full consent.  Therefore, if a couple is engaging in a contraceptive act with full knowledge and consent of the will, the act is a mortal sin.

Next, let’s look at paragraph 16:

“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.”

From this we deduce that the Church permits the use of the knowledge of fertility cycles (otherwise known as Natural Family Planning) for the purpose of regulating births.

Finally, let’s back up to paragraph 10:

“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.”

The key word here is “serious.”  Now, there have been volumes of ink spilled over what constitutes a “serious reason.”  My intent here is not to enter this debate.  My intent is rather to illustrate that the language of the Church always defaults to openness to children.  We can argue all day about wether or not this or that situation constitutes a “serious reason,” and this is probably why the Church leaves this to the prudential decision of the couple, but there is no room for debate on whether or not the Church says that a reason must exist.  The married couple’s general disposition should be towards bringing children into the world with the help of God; “serious reasons,” whatever they may be, are the exception, not the rule.

Quoting the end of paragraph 9, in which we find the famous outline of married love as free, total, faithful, and fruitful (which contrary to popular belief occurs right here in Humane Vitae and is not the invention of Christopher West):

“Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. ‘Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare.’”

[NB.  The quotation within the quotation is from Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes.]

Putting all of this together, we have two very important observations.

1.  Nowhere does Humanae Vitae (or any other Church document for that matter) insists that a couple use natural family planning.  Rather, she insists that the couple refrain from contraception.  A couple is perfectly free to simply trust in the creative power of God without charting fertility cycles.

2.  Nowhere does Humane Vitae (or any other Church document for that matter) say the use of natural family planning on its own means that the couple is thinking with the mind of the Church.  The emphasis of Humanae Vitae is on openness to children, not natural family planning.  NFP is one tool in which one could live within the mind of the Church.  However, if the use of natural family planning is done with a contraceptive mentality, which would include postponing children for reasons other than serious, then the couple would not be living according to the truth of Humanae Vitae which is, once more, centered around openness to children.

I should give my big caveat here.  The use of NFP with a contraceptive mentality is not morally sound, but a whole different ball game is engaging in a contraceptive act.  A couple who postpones children for reasons other than serious is guilty of selfishness, not trusting in God, failure to completely abandon the self ... but they are decidedly not guilty of a contraceptive act.  I am no moral theologian, but it is hard for me to imagine that using NFP without a total openness to children is a mortal sin; there is no doubt that a contraceptive act (with full knowledge and full consent) is.

In a way, the whole thing reminds me of the Sermon on the Mount and Christ’s call to perfection.  Avoiding contraception fulfills the letter of the law, but a complete openness to children and trust in God’s creative power and protecting hand is the perfection of the law.