A Fresh And Critical Look At The Moral Difference Between NFP And Contraception  Daniel Santoro Originally published in Issue XVI of Vulgata, May 2007.

The Proposition . . .

I was recently in a discussion with a friend, Catholic and for the most part relatively ‘conservative’ in his views on sexuality, who, after much discussion and debate, put to me the following position:

“I am against sex outside of marriage. I also believe that a main purpose of marriage is procreation and the rearing of a family. However, a couple may, at some point in their married and family life, for legitimate reasons, wish to avoid pregnancy, either permanently or temporarily. In these circumstances, I see no moral difference in the so-called “Natural Family Planning” (NFP) method approved by the Catholic Church, and any other method. I understand that the chemistry of present female contraceptives may act as an abortifacient, preventing implantation after conception has occurred. I am against such contraceptives insofar as they are abortifacient, because I believe life begins at conception and am absolutely against abortion. However, should there be an oral contraceptive which could safely and definitely work only to prevent ovulation, thus preventing conception from occurring in the first place, I would not have any problem with it. I also have no moral problem with the use of any ‘barrier methods’ in the same circumstances. I believe that a couple should remain open to the possibility of conceiving new life in the event that their chosen method of birth control fails and should want and accept that child with love. The Catholic Church is simply inconsistent in maintaining the morality of NFP and the absolute immorality of other methods of contraception, if used during marriage and with a legitimate reason.”

Having achieved many concessions up to this point, and feeling that I had made much progress, I decided to tackle this very particular issue. I continued to put forward the arguments that I had learned from the writings of some prominent contemporary Catholics. After all, they had worked so far. However, my friend being more adept at honest debate than myself, demonstrated that that most of my arguments were vacuous in the face of his very particular critique. Only one argument had limited success, but I was not able to articulate it and defend it in enough detail to withstand his pointed criticism. I was forced to temporarily concede the failure of my position, but I resolved to retreat, research, and return with an argument that would address the issue at its very core.

The arguments put forward by many prominent Catholic writers on this very particular issue fail the test of honest critical inquiry. However, the reasoning as put forth in the official documents of the Church treat this issue in an entirely different and satisfying way. This is at once surprising yet expected to the faithful Catholic.

Evaluating the Morality of an Act

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (1749-1761) that the morality of human acts depends on 1) the object chosen, 2) the end in view or the intention, and 3) the circumstances (and consequences) of the action. The object and intention together determine the morality of the action, while the circumstances only serve to increase or decrease the goodness or evil of an act, or diminish or increase the responsibility of the actor. In order for an action to be morally good, both the intention and the object itself must be good. That is, even if the object chosen is good, if the intention of the actor is bad, the morality of the action is rendered evil. Consider the example of one who donates to charity for the sole purpose of gaining public glory. The selfish intention renders the otherwise good action immoral. Similarly, no good intention can make an objectively evil action moral. The ends do not justify the means; one may not do evil so that good may follow (cf. Veritatis Splendor 32, Romans 3:8). (Note that the process of evaluating the objective morality of an act is different than evaluating subjective culpability or guilt).

The Proposition Refined

What makes answering to my friend’s critique more difficult is that he acknowledges the evil of the intention that often accompanies contraceptive action, the ‘contraceptive mentality’. He agrees that it is wrong to use either NFP or any other method without a good reason. Indeed, the Church concurs with his view on this: NFP is only permissible if there are ‘serious motives’ (HV 16) or ‘just reasons’ (CCC 2368), such as spacing child birth for health reasons, or limiting family size for a good and entirely unselfish motive. It logically follows that other means of contraception can be used with the same good intention. For my friend, whether contraception or NFP is used to achieve this good end with good intentions is irrelevant: it is like choosing between taking the escalator or the stairs to get from the first to the second floor, because you use either for the same reason and they both get where you want to go. The following chart may be helpful:

This is the essence of the charge against the Church: It is inconsistent to hold that artificial birth control is immoral while maintaining that NFP is moral. The intention for using either method can be the same and can be legitimate. The consequences are the same. And while there is of course a difference in the means used, the difference is not morally relevant: it is like choosing between taking the escalator or the stairs.
The Church teaches that even if a contraceptive method is used with a good intention and with a good consequence, it is still wrong. But when NFP is used for the exact same reason and with the same consequence, it is not wrong. This seems to be the crux of the contradiction.

However, the reason it is not a contradiction is because certain methods of contraception are an inherently evil means, while NFP is not. The ends do not justify the means; one may not do evil so that good may follow. No amount of good intention can render an objectively disordered choice moral. It is the method itself, the means used, that is objectively disordered.

Common Explanation #1: “Closed to Life”?

Before explaining the exact reason why contraception is inherently disordered, it will be useful to temporarily digress in order to address some of the popular theological explanations. A very common argument is that contraception is wrong because it is “contra-life” – a married couple must remain open to life. With NFP, as the argument goes, the couple remains open to the possibility of conception whereas with contraception, since it is a positive action against conception, they do not.

There are three ways of interpreting this argument. The first is that “open to life” and “closed to life” refer to the intentions of the married couple. Clearly though, a couple can contracept while being “open to life” in that they will accept any conception that may take place; similarly a couple can use NFP while being “closed to life” i.e. with a contraceptive mentality or simply not wanting a pregnancy to occur. Indeed, there would be no reason whatsoever to use NFP were it not for the fact that the couples were in some sense, “closed to life”. We must call a spade a spade and admit that couples using NFP legitimately positively do not want a pregnancy to occur, even though they would be open to the child should one occur. Indeed, the Church Herself affirms that a married couple is allowed in some circumstances to be closed to life: “It is true that, in the one and the other case [i.e. NFP and contraception], the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive” (HV 16). This desire not to become pregnant, if for just reasons, is not wrong in the eyes of the Church.

The second interpretation of this argument is that it refers to consequences. Since the couple is not taking some positive action against conception within their own bodies, they are remaining open to its possibility (i.e. “if it is the will of God”). This argument ignores the fact that NFP can actually be more effective at preventing conception (read consequences) than most artificial methods of contraception. Thus, in this sense, a couple using a condom is more “open to life” than a couple using NFP, since a condom has a 5-10% of breaking while NFP is 95-98% effective. God may will a breakthrough ovulation when on the pill, the breakage of a condom, or some temporary failure in the method of NFP. However, the statistical facts are that the former occur more frequently than the latter.

The third interpretation is the only tenable one, that only NFP remains open to life ‘in principle’. It is proposed that the underlying meaning of this phrase is the respect for the human person and human sexuality. This will be expanded later. However, I believe the language is sufficiently confusing to warrant its abandonment.¹
Stated simply, the problem is that under a strong definition of "open to life" both motives are condemned and under a weak definition both motives are condoned. It is the means themselves which are determinative of the moral difference.

Common Explanation #2: “Allowing as opposed to Acting”

This rather technical argument goes as follows. Sexuality has two purposes: unitive and procreative, and they must never be deliberately separated. Contraception is wrong because it is a positive action to separate the unitive from the procreative elements of sexuality. NFP is permissible, however, because it is simply abstinence calculated such that a sexual act never occurs when the unitive and procreative are naturally joined. NFP simply takes advantage of the natural fact that the unitive and procreative become separated at during some phases of a woman’s cycle. Thus, the moral difference lies in allowing the unitive and procreative to become separate as opposed to positively willing their separation. NFP is a negative choice not to act (i.e. to abstain) which cannot be wrong, while contraception is a positive choice for infertility, which is wrong. NFP is to contraception as natural death is to euthanasia.

Aside from being thoroughly unpersuasive and intensely complicated, the argument has flaws. There is no moral difference between positively willing something (infertility) and passively accepting it, when something could be done to stop it. Consider a more apt analogy: pushing someone off a cliff as compared to watching them slowly fall off when one could save them by simply extending a hand. Both actions are clearly morally equivalent. The euthanasia/death analogy is false for two reasons: 1) When death is preventable reasonable measures should be taken to stop it. If the same were true for infertility, NFP would be impermissible. 2) A theological explanation: God did not create death – it is a consequence of original sin and is evil. God did create the woman and her cycle, and very intricately indeed. And the woman is naturally infertile at certain times. Infertility is therefore not evil as death is evil. The allow-act argument relies on the hidden premise that infertility is evil and can therefore be permitted if necessary but not positively willed. If infertility is not inherently evil (and it is not) then it would not be wrong to positively will it or passively accept it. It seems obvious that the essence of NFP is calculated abstinence not simply abstinence. Couples who practice NFP do indeed positively will that all their sexual acts are infertile (at best they can be described as being complicit and deriving a benefit from it). If they did not, there would be no need for all those pesky charts and graphs. If infertility were evil, then NFP would be immoral. It is not; rather, it is not evil at least insofar as it is a part of God’s creation and design.

The common elements to the false arguments are intense complication and confusion, and self-serving post hoc ergo propter hoc definitions of terms. The couple firmly resolved to believe the Church’s teaching may find some solace in them; but the intellectually honest with no faith may see the arguments as desiring to justify a conclusion which is held by faith, rather than as good enough reasons in themselves to assent to the truth. (Of course, there are many other obstacles in practice to assenting to this truth, the most common being habitual action. However, the ideal argument is one that even the intellectually honest habitual sinner will be forced to acknowledge is valid and built on strong premises. The two best results in such a confrontation are assent to the conclusion or a forced and artificial denial of the premise previously assented to.)

The Proposed Solution

In order to answer the very particular critique posed at the beginning of this article, it is necessary to establish that contraception is intrinsically disordered. The ultimate reason for this is that contraception does not respect but actually perverts the very nature of human sexuality, the human body and the human person. Contraceptive sex is intrinsically disordered because it perverts the nature and meaning of human sexuality. Sex is one sort of act with certain inherent meanings; contraception is a perversion of the sort of act that sex is and violates its inherent meanings. Furthermore, human sexuality runs very deep in our nature – it affects our biological, psychological, and spiritual reality, and colours all of our human relationships. It was created by God for certain purposes, and it goes to the core of what it means to be a human person created in the image of God. Any violation of the nature of our sexuality seriously contradicts the good of the human person and is therefore wrong.

The human body is designed by God and it must be respected as such. There is a difference between restorative medicine (aimed at restoring the healthy function of the body) and something more aptly termed ‘mad science’, which seeks to fundamentally alter a natural and healthy state. Fertility is as natural and healthy as sight, hearing, and digestion. It is therefore wrong to take a pill or series of pills designed for the purpose of causing infertility, just as it would be wrong to take a pill that would cause blindness. It is a fundamental disrespect to the human body and God’s design of it. Even a basic study of the underlying biology of the female and male reproductive systems reveals their nearly miraculous intricacy. The birth control pill essentially treats fertility as a disease rather than as the natural, proper, and healthy function of the human body. For the same reason, permanent sterilization is wrong, as it is simply a form of bodily mutilation. I would note that saying that the birth control pill is intrinsically disordered does not imply that the pills themselves are somehow inherently evil. For the pills are simply hormones which are natural bodily chemicals. Hormone pills may rightly be used when they serve the purpose of restoring rather than destroying the healthy functioning of the human body. To deliberately destroy the natural and healthy functioning of the human body, to treat fertility as a disease, is to assert oneself as the arbiter of the divine plan, to maintain that the wisdom of man is greater than the design of God.

This same line of reasoning may also be carried to show the problem with any ‘barrier’ methods of contraception, such as the condom. Such ‘barriers’ do not respect the human body and the nature of sexual intercourse. Consider, for the moment, a man who eats with a plastic bag down his throat, who chews and swallows with great enjoyment, but then pulls up the bag and discards its contents. His intention may be good (not getting fat), but the means used to achieve that end are inherently evil. Such activity interferes with the very essence of eating, thus greatly disrespecting the human body and its natural function. If eating were as pleasurable as sex, it is virtually guaranteed that everyone would start doing this in a government sponsored program of “safe eating”. Similarly, the Roman who overindulges himself only to make a quick visit to the vomitorium soon thereafter commits an analogous action to the user of the ‘withdrawl’ method of contraception.

Not only does contraception violate sexuality as a natural act, it desecrates its supernatural value. Sexual intercourse, unlike most other bodily actions, is in an important sense a supernatural act. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament, and the ministers of the sacrament are the couple themselves, not the priest. It is through the consummation of the marriage in the sexual act that the sacrament is completed – without it, there is no sacrament. A sacrament by definition is a vehicle of God’s grace for man. It is obviously more serious to violate something with a supernatural character than something that is merely natural. It is disrespect to violate a natural thing; it is desecration to violate something holy.

Sex is a procreative type of act – procreation is one of its purposes. Anything that is intended to turn a sexual act into a non-procreative type of act is a perversion of its nature. Contraception does precisely this – it changes the sexual act into a non-procreative type of act and thus perverts its nature. The Code of Canon Law employs the ‘type of act’ category in the definition of a consummated marriage:

1061 §1. A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

The sexual act must be one that is apt in itself for procreation. It is this act to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh. There exists a category in the mind of the Church of a sort of sexual act that is in itself apt for the generation of offspring. Since a marriage cannot be consummated by sexual acts that are not in themselves apt for procreation, such acts are clearly a different sorts of acts. Now, since there is no doubt that sterile and elderly couples can contract valid marriages it is not merely the possible physical consequences that determine what sort of act we are talking about. It is the natural physical consequences that determine that sexual intercourse is a procreative sort of act. In short, sexual intercourse is, by its very nature, a procreative type of act: it is “in itself apt for the generation of offspring.” Contraception is an attempt to render the sexual act non-procreative in type. It contradicts the procreative nature of sex and is therefore an unnatural perversion.

Human sexuality was designed for two purposes: unitive and procreative. Even when the procreative function is not used or unavailable, sexuality serves a unitive purpose – two persons are joined together, “the two become one flesh”. The union of bodies is the completed expression of the total self-giving love between a husband and wife. The bodily union follows and completes the union that is psychological and spiritual. In a way that is often ignored, contraception destroys the unitive aspect of sexuality. The couple are not fully giving their bodies to each other when any method of contraception is used. This is not the case with NFP.

In using artificial methods of contraception as opposed to NFP, a person asserts their domination over the nature of sexuality rather than accepting it as a holy creation. This is the ultimate consequence in a morality which permits contraception. Contraception is an assertion of one self as a master over nature: it is implied that one has the right to change what is natural and good whenever it is suitable. God and his design are thus made to conform to man, and not vice versa. This is precisely the mentality that underlies many modern bioethical sins such as in-vitro fertilization and cloning. It is also closely linked to a homosexual mentality where the natural creation of man and woman, their bodies, and sexuality are not seen to have any intrinsic meaning or design. Gender, sexuality, pregnancy – none have any natural meaning any longer. The moral permissibility of contraception implies all of these problems when taken to its logical conclusion. It is no coincidence then that these problems have in reality followed the introduction of contraception. NFP, on the other hand, promotes virtue, and forces the couple to a natural awareness that is scarcely possible otherwise.

In the Catholic world-view, human sexuality is a holy creation. It is a physical expression of a spiritual and psychological reality. Pope John Paul II continually uses terms such as the ‘inner truth’ of conjugal love, and its internal logic. This reflects an intense belief that God creates everything with a purpose – there are no accidents. There is a deep underlying meaning which must be discerned. Contraception violates the created order; it does not respect this meaning. NFP works in accordance with it. The actual consequences reflect this: NFP promotes virtue, while contraception inevitably leads to vice.²

Appendix: The Church Documents

The definition of contraception as put forth in Humanae Vitae: To be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth are: “direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14). Paul VI goes on to describe such actions as “intrinsic disorder”, which cannot be made right even with a good intention (HV 14). If a couple truly does have ‘serious motives’ for spacing out child birth, they must act “with respect for the order established by God”. The specific reason given by Paul VI for the non-contradiction between condemning artificial contraception while allowing NFP, even when both are “inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious”, is that with NFP “the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition” while with contraception, “they impede the development of natural processes” (HV 16). In short, human intelligence can be used to intervene in creation, but “this must be done with respect for the order established by God” (HV 16).

It was similarly proclaimed at the Second Vatican Counsel in Gaudium et Spes that “when it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life it is not enough to take only the good intention and evaluation of motives into account: objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human action, criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; all this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is seriously practiced” (GS 51).

And finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that NFP, defined as “methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods” is “in conformity with the objective criteria of morality”. Such methods “respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favour the education of an authentic freedom” (CCC 2370). Contraception as defined in Humanae Vitae, on the other hand, is “intrinsically evil”. This is a strong statement, as few things can be described as intrinsically evil.

The Catechism relies on John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio for the exact reason for this difference:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration. [Citation omitted]

In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never "used" as an "object" that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.

It is always apparent from the writings of John Paul II that the Church teaching reflects a deep reality that is difficult to fully comprehend.