By Father Thomas J. Euteneuer
Q: What is the difference between a couple who uses contraception NOT to get pregnant and a couple who uses Natural Family Planning NOT to get pregnant? Aren’t they both contracepting?
A: No. There is an intrinsic difference between these two acts. One is preventing conception by a deliberate act, and the other is avoiding conception by cooperation with nature. Both have the same result of not producing a baby, but they achieve this result by very different means. The end does not justify the means; rather the right means lead to the right ends, Thus, when it is necessary to avoid a pregnancy for grave reasons, the Church teaches that there is only one moral way to get there, the natural way.
The difference between natural and artificial birth prevention can be likened to the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Both acts lead to a reduction in the taxes paid, but one is illegal and the other is legal. For example, in tax evasion I am committing a fraud by a deliberate attempt to cheat the system of its due. (I am morally obliged to contribute to the common good.) In tax avoidance I am using the various possibilities for tax reduction that the system itself provides in order to avoid some of its costs. There is a world of difference between the two methods, even though in both cases I am paying fewer taxes.1
The human reproductive system has a built-in system of avoiding pregnancy. God built into the woman’s body cycles of fertility and infertility so pregnancy would not result from every sexual act. By learning the natural cycles of fertility, a couple may morally avoid conceiving a baby when they have a serious reason to do so. Conversely, a couple may also use the knowledge to achieve pregnancy.
The morality of the act has to take into account the intention as well as the method. The immoral intention of artificial contraception is birth prevention while the moral intention of Natural Family Planning is birth avoidance using the natural cycles of fertility. With the one, couples take “control” of the sexual function and nullify or sterilize it. Hence the name birth “control.” It turns the divine command “Be fruitful and multiply” right on its head. In the other, the couple cooperates with the natural system consisting of both fertile and infertile periods. If, however, a couple were to use NFP without grave reason for avoiding pregnancy, then their intention would be contraceptive by definition and therefore also gravely immoral. This is a distinction that even many teachers of NFP do not clarify for couples when they teach it, but it is the clear teaching of the Church that couples must not use NFP for “natural” contraception.
We can explain it another way. It all comes down to the “mentality” with which one uses the gift of human sexuality. If couples are masters and controllers of the sexual function, they will be engaging in immoral sex because they will be preventing births with their own selfish designs in mind. However, if they are stewards of God’s gift of sexuality in marriage, they cooperate with the Lord and become channels of His life to the world.
1 The American tax system allows deductions for each dependent child in the family. I know a pro-lifer in the U.S. who has nine children and as a result pays no taxes at all!
Recent Comments