Loading ...
I’ve had a question concerning Natural Family Planning rattling around in my head for awhile, and a conversation I had today with a non-Catholic persuaded me to finally post it. It’s always a little dangerous getting into these controversial waters, but this is an angle of the topic that we’ve never discussed before, and indeed, I haven’t found much discussion of it anywhere. So I thought I might as well open a thread.
To begin, I should define the ‘Stork Method’ for those readers who haven’t been following all our blog discussions since the winter of ‘05. It is a term coined here at the Cornell Society for a Good Time for a method of family planning that involves, basically, learning nothing about fertility, engaging in marital relations as circumstance and personal whim dictate, and accepting whatever children happen to be conceived thereby. It is recommended by certain members of our Society as the most virtuous means of building a family. Not knowing exactly their mind on the subject I cannot promise to accurately summarize their reasons for endorsing the Stork Method; certainly one interest is to shun utterly any possibility of using NFP as a means of pregnancy avoidance without sufficiently grave reasons. I think, though, that the idea may go deeper than this, and entail a rejection of the idea of ‘family planning’ generally. Proponents of this plan like the idea that children come in God’s time and not ours. They are affronted by the idea that they themselves should assume control over such a sacred event as conception (which does, after all, bring a new soul into existence.) Thus, the Stork Method endeavors to leave the matter in God’s hands.
I myself have never been a particularly big proponent of the Stork Method. For married couples who are conceiving at reasonable intervals (whatever that might mean), and who have no interest in learning more about fertility, I don’t suppose there’s any moral defect in it. Certainly it is possible for couples to use NFP to avoid pregnancy without adequate reason, and particularly when this goes on over long periods, it can be a serious moral failing. But I find it a little hard to swallow that a studied ignorance in readily available facts about one’s own physiology would be a promising path to virtue. Regarding the desire to simply leave the matter in God’s hands, I can only observe that this is impossible in any case. God Himself has ordained that conception should require a voluntary action on our parts, and the Church has not told us with any specificity when we should engage in it. If we avoid intentional efforts to conceive, and engage in marital relations only in response to physical desire, is that morally superior? It hardly seems so to me.
Now, in all fairness, there is Biblical precedent for the cultivating deliberate ignorance. King David, when going into battle, was once ordered not to count the enemy, as a sign that he trusted the Lord to bring victory under any circumstances. I would note, though, that this was a fairly specialized case — God had particular reasons to want to use that battle as a test of David’s trust, and so gave the command. The Church has never advised using this as a principle for warfare generally. Similarly here, I would certainly advise the use of the Stork Method for those who have received personal revelation commanding that it be used, or for those who have been so instructed by their spiritual advisors. Otherwise, I would broadly recommend to married couples that they learn something about fertility, as such knowledge may prove useful in a wide variety of contexts.
After all this introduction, I had better, perhaps, get to the main question of the day. Are there cases in which Catholic couples would be rightly faulted for not seeking out available fertility aid? Might the Stork Method, under some circumstances, prove positively immoral?
My thinking here is guided by the consideration that, in our present age, there are a great many available medical treatments for infertility. Some are straightforwardly immoral (IVF, for example) and some might prove prohibitively expensive for many couples. There are, however, a non-trivial number of couples for whom an easy, affordable and morally permissible treatment might make the difference between remaining barren for life, and having a family. I won’t elaborate too much on the details for fear of traumatizing our bachelors here at the CSGT. It suffices to say, however, that there are cases in which a simple drug store product, or a modification of one’s diet or exercise routines, could be all that’s needed. In such cases, is a couple morally defective for failing to avail themselves of the readily available treatment that would allow them to become parents?
On the one hand, there doesn’t seem to be any specific sin here. At what point does the infertile couple make a misstep? Their positive actions may be virtuous, and their general intentions with respect to marriage may also be perfectly wholesome.
Nonetheless, such a couple does seem to be potentially sinning, at least in cases where the needed treatment is inexpensive and (morally and medically) safe. Though less obviously defective, this still seems to me like something of a mirror image to couples who use NFP for lengthy periods to avoid pregnancy. They are not directly violating the Church’s moral law. But in not seeking to raise a family, they are demonstrating a defective attitude towards marriage. At the very least, such a couple might be guilty of sloth (assuming, of course, that they have no grave reasons to avoid bearing children.)
Now, though, we must take the argument a further step. Couples practicing the Stork Method are unlikely to know anything about the reasons for their failing to conceive. And if they wanted to learn more, the best way to begin would be… with the information learned in an NFP class. (It’s much better to try this route than to go directly to a doctor for help. The NFP may itself give couples all the information they need to conceive, and if it doesn’t, it’s likely to narrow down the options for what the problem could be, possibly allowing them to bypass many expensive tests.)
Granted that the Stork Method can be perfectly fine for couples who are having no problem conceiving, what should we say to couples who don’t conceive? Some might point out that the Stork Method was practiced for centuries by Catholics all over the world. Actually, in the first place, that might not be entirely true. While we clearly know more about fertility now than we did 500 years ago, some things have been known for quite some time. But in any case, the availability of treatments does seem to change the moral situation, does it not? Inaction is always permissible when it’s the only available option. When other, better options exist, might we not have an obligation to investigate them, if that offers us an obvious means for better fulfilling our state in life? And for infertile couples today, there are quite a few better options than the Stork Method.
I don’t by any means think that married couples are obliged to do everything in their power to have children (or, if they have a child or two already, to have more.) The list of possible fertility treatments is enormous, and some are immoral or impractical for various reasons. There can come a point, too, when the whole process is just too difficult emotionally for couples who want to be parents and can’t. There could be lots of good reasons for giving up. But a couple who viewed a failure to conceive as just a lucky break would certainly be exhibiting a moral defect. It seems to me that a couple who desired children, but failed to seek help on the basis of a belief that the Stork Method was more inherently virtuous, might also be defective, or at the very least confused.
It surprises me that I’m having so much difficulty finding any discussion of the correct Catholic view on this matter. Surely, given the booming size of our fertility industry, the question has been broached before?
Clara, this is a most interesting and very dangerous question. This response is off the top of my head since I’ve never heard or read the question posed.
I think the reason you cannot find a Catholic view on the matter is that the Church sees no obligation on the part of infertile couples to seek out intervention of any kind. Catholic teaching on procreation is rooted in law, both divine and natural, and expressed in the conditions required for a sacramental marriage. There is nothing in divine law that commands man to reproduce, only that commands him not to use artificial means to prevent reproduction. This divine law is rooted and revealed in natural law which, very basically, commands that man reproduce to keep the species going. This prohibition against impeding contraception and reproduction does not mean that man is required to act in a positive way so as to cause conception over and above intercourse. Man is only required to be open to conception and reprodution and do nothing to prevent it.
The Church has never taught that a married couple must reproduce, only that they do nothing unnatural to prevent reproduction. In the natural order every act of copulation does not result in conception. This is true of man. There are examples of this in the Scriptures, one being Zachariah and Elizabeth. It took divine intervention for the conception of John the Baptist. So too, though found in Tradition, Joachaim and Anne.
Finally, and herein lies the danger, were it an obligation for a couple to seek out help with conception, even using natural methods, it could be seen as an easy means to an annulment. Note that the Church does not require any kind of test to prove that both parties preparing to contract a marriage are fertile and/or able to conceive. She only asks if they know of a particular medical or physiological issue. If they do not know of one, and in fact there is one, it does not invalidate the marriage since the couple is acting in good faith. Perhaps it is God’s will that they have no children. That cannot be known. If it is found out, after the marriage has taken place, good will is presumed and the marriage is not invalid since it cannot be proven absolutely that one or the other were incapable of procreation at the time of marriage. It is entirely possible that, at the time of the Marriage, God could have acted to remove the impediment to procreation, however briefly. A marriage in this case is always considered valid unless it is declared invalid. However, should one or both parties seek an annulment it is possible that the marriage be declared null.
So, can the “Stork Method” be immoral? I don’t believe so. There is nothing in divine or natural law that obliges a couple to actually have children. They are only required to be open to the possibility thereof and do nothing to prevent it.
I agree with Fr. Bailey, and answer in the negative.
Really, isn’t this awful close to a banned subject? I must also register, if I failed to on previous occasions, my serious displeasure at your use of the term “Stork method”.
You have managed to give us a pretty good straw man. Those who are of the Stork Mentality do not cultivate deliberate ignorance so as to avoid children. I think it can be said that those who employ the Stork Method sincerely want to have children and wont be satisfied if they are not forthcoming. I think it fair to say at some point they would most likely employ the Rosary or make a Novena. In “Man for All Seasons,” Cardinal Wolsey asks More what he would do about the situation of Queen Catherine’s barrenness and he replies, “Pray.” Wolsey scoffs and More says, “Well, there is a precedent.”
De Montfort relates in the Secret of the Rosary, how in the Middle Ages Queen Blanche of Castile, when after not being able to conceive, asked her court to say the Rosary for that intention and personally passed out rosaries. The result was the great saint and king, Louis of France. I have witnessed the success of the Rosary in that regard myself. I would wager that more people owe their existence—as well as their safe delivery—to Saint Gerard rather than to the science surrounding NFP. Many have Gerard as a middle name even today. Added to prayer, a visit to a good Catholic doctor would also be quite likely, but attending an NFP class, never. It’s funny but somehow there’s this quirk that associates NFP and PP. People have to be re-educated that NFP is not so much about not having children as about having them responsibly and at the right time, according to Dad’s pay check or Mom’s career.
I’m sure that in coming up with the term “Stork Method” you didn’t mean to belittle those who prefer Divine Providence over NFP. It’s actually a rather nice expression, emphasizing as it does the simplicity and innocence of children in these matters. However, those of the stork mentality do not rule out science and usually go to a doctor and eventually the hospital—although mid-wivery is making a strong comeback as a much better means of child delivery—closer to the stork, for sure. On the other hand around my home, for those who are of the NFP mindset, we coined a term: “Consulting the Augurs.” The latter is a little less scientific than charts and graphs but the former is about as equally unpleasant as reading chicken entrails.
I’m sorry if the term “Stork Method” offends. I know it was I who first coined it, but I seem to remember it being fairly widely adopted in a past discussion. I guess it might seem a bit too cute, but I think it captures well the spirit of the practice. Depending on how you look at it, it might seem a bit naive or facile, but on the other hand, in a certain light it could seem sweet, and conducive to retaining a childlike wonder at the miracle of life. So, the term “Stork Method” seems to reflect reasonably well both the positive and negative sides of the method.
And did we really ban this topic? I posted on it last fall, and nobody seemed to complain.
I certainly agree with you, Discipule, that prayer should also be employed as an effective remedy. And indeed, there is precedent! But it would seem a bit odd to me to pray for children without trying at least the more basic fertility treatments. It would be rather like praying for a home for your family but refusing to check and see what’s listed in the paper or online, or praying for a job but not bothering to apply for any. If you genuinely want a thing, it seems reasonable to take such steps as are easily within your power to help bring it about. I don’t doubt you’re right that many Catholics of anti-NFP persuasions would consult a doctor long before they would consider trying these natural methods, but this is foolish. They might save themselves considerable trouble and money by gathering more information through natural indicators. (And is it really so unpleasant? I hear people say that sometimes, but it’s never seemed that way to me. Just interesting, and often quite useful, to understand my natural cycles more fully. Of course I can understand how men might react differently, but especially for women, I don’t think opponents always realize just how commonsensical NFP really is. The first time I spent an evening reading an NFP book, I was not lost in “My body is so beautiful!!!” raptures like Weigel’s much-maligned NFP-user. But I did react something like this: “Oh, interesting, I guess that makes sense. You know, it’s kind of dumb that nobody ever explained that to me before.” In talking to female friends who have never read up on this, I now occasionally get tripped up when I reference something they’ve never heard of and they give me confused looks. You forget how much basic information a lot of women just don’t know.)
Now, for Fr. Bailey’s more serious objections. I understand all that you say, and I admit that I had not at all considered the question from the standpoint of couples applying for an annulment. That puts another wrinkle into an already-complicated question. But I confess that I still have trouble seeing much difference between a couple who uses NFP indefinitely for the sake of avoiding pregnancy, and a couple who refuses to avail themselves of even very simple fertility aids.
I don’t know how you feel about this, Father, but past discussions have revealed that many of this blog’s contributors/regular guests are inclined to see NFP as something that should be used only when there are extremely serious reasons, such as warfare or borderline starvation. I do not wish to reopen a discussion of adequate reasons here (we’ve beaten that horse to death), but it suffices to say that most seem to agree that avoiding pregnancy, for considerable periods or even indefinitely, can be sinful even if contraceptives are not involved. Now, it’s true that a couple who uses NFP as a means for avoiding pregnancy is most likely making some effort to avoid getting pregnant. Exactly how much might vary from couple to couple; some women, for example, can feel when they ovulate, so they might be able to use periodic continence quite effectively with essentially no expended effort. Others must invest considerably more. Nonetheless, for these couples, as for the infertile couple that doesn’t seek help, none of their specific actions stand in violation of the moral law. They are not in any way altering the marital act so as to render it infertile. The Church’s law neither requires them to engage in marital relations at fertile times, nor prevents them from doing so at infertile times. And they might be genuinely “open to life” in the sense that, if their calculations failed and they became pregnant anyway, they would bear and raise the child.
If these couples are guilty, it is by omission, and also perhaps by virtue of their disordered intention. They wish to be married and to enjoy marital relations without having to take on the burden of children, and this is a defective attitude to take towards one’s married life. But if that is potentially sinful, how can we avoid painting the infertile couples with the same brush?
Let me make this a bit more concrete (while still trying to avoid excessive details) by giving an example. One widespread condition that often prevents conception is, let’s just say, dryness. There is a remedy which can easily be purchased online for around $15, which many have found to be very effective. It’s completely natural, completely safe, and in no way unpleasant. I have heard of people who say that they can conceive fairly easily with the help of this product, and without it not at all (so, you see, there are people who essentially have to plan their children’s births, if they want to have any.) Suppose (to take the clearest case) that a couple was aware that they had a problem with dryness, and that this readily available product might well make all the difference. Do they really have no obligation at all to make the attempt? Can we plausibly say that a couple who passes their married life without offspring, when they know they could likely straighten the problem out for a mere $15, is any more “open to life” than the one that uses NFP to avoid pregnancy? Recall that the fault of the NFP-using couple was supposed to be in their general intention and in their attitude towards marriage as a whole, not in any specific sinful action. And in these respects, the couple in the above case does not seem appreciably different from the one that avoids pregnancy through NFP.
I admitted that I had not thought much about annulment claims. But consider a case like this. Suppose a woman comes in seeking an annulment, and one of her complaints is that her husband is not genuinely open to having children. He agreed from the outset to forego the use of contraceptives, and he pays the marriage debt. But she has determined that she most likely will not be able to conceive without the aid of the above-mentioned $15 product… and he flatly refuses to agree to using it. He has no plausible justifications for his refusal. Now, I don’t know that an annulment would be granted on the basis of that alone, but doesn’t the husband in question seem to be wronging his wife in an important way (assuming her fertility assessment is correct)? Might not a marriage tribunal take that sort of thing into account in their ruling on a particular case? It does seem to be evidence of a general unwillingness to procreate.
Condemning the Stork Method (in certain cases) is a step further removed, of course, from the case above. Most practitioners of this method probably wouldn’t know what their fertility problem was, though even then they might well pick up some ideas just in conversation with others (or while browsing on Catholic blogs?) But it may be that obliging people to actively learn about fertility is a step too far. Since we’re discussing general intention, though, the relevant consideration would seem to be: what actions would a couple who wished to understand marriage in a properly Catholic way be most likely to take? Well, they wouldn’t want to practice periodic continence forever. But it also seems to me that they wouldn’t want to rest forever in ignorance as to why they weren’t conceiving. A normal person, if they really saw offspring as the great good that the Church takes them to be, would want to investigate the matter.
Admittedly there are many shades of gray in this realm. Even if seeking fertility could be obligatory, how much effort would the couple expected to expend? How long can they reasonably wait without turning to such measures? And so forth. But, you see, these questions of marriage and family are filled with gray shades; there’s really no getting around it. And I just can’t see that there’s any bright line between practicing periodic continence (which is, when it comes down to it, a negative method of pregnancy avoidance) and avoiding basic fertility treatments.
I hate to stray at all from the topic, but…
On another note, seeking a doctor’s advice on infertility can actually help a woman’s (or man’s)general health. I am not speaking of doctors who respond to infertility concerns by writing fertility drug prescriptions or preparing the couple for In-Vitro Fertilization. Rather, I’m thinking more of the Creighton/ Pope Paul VI Institute method, a truly acceptable method, morally, whereby couples travel to Omaha and go through a series of tests to see if there is some kind of overarching or simple health problem that is contributing to infertility. The attitude there is more that you heal the patient, and thus hopefuly heal their fertility. Of course there are cases where a person is permanently barren, or some kind of condition has caused infertility. But I know of a couple who went to Creighton and discovered that their own fertility problems were due to hormonal imbalance, a thyroid problem, and endometriosis. All of which can hopefully be treated, and should be treated anyway. Of the three, it was most important for the wife to learn of the endometriosis, since this condition will never truly go away and can cause health problems later in life if not treated (eventually through a hysterectomy).
So seeking fertility help from somewhere like Creighton can actually improve your overall health- but it comes at a very high cost, and one that most insurance companies will not cover (which strikes me as terrible and strange, since the program at Creighton is aimed at restoring total physical health). Is a Catholic couple obliged to buy plane tickets and write big checks for this treatment? No. But if more doctors and insurance companies had this mindset- that infertility often stems from other, sometimes easily corrected physical problems (like the thyroid)- then perhaps more couples could live more healthily and possibly conceive.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used NFP from the beginning of my marriage until the end of my fertility and was at one point an instructor. I see a huge difference between periodic continence and refraining from fertility treatments. The goal of the former is to avoid pregnancy while the goal of the latter is to trust God.
“The goal of the former is to avoid pregnancy while the goal of the latter is to trust God.”
It might be, but not necessarily. Some people might (consciously or unconsciously) mainly be happy to avoid the burden of children. And even insofar as one views the shunning of fertility treatments as a way of trusting God, it’s not clear that that’s really the right way to see it — just as in my case of the person who prays for a job instead of applying for one.
Clara, Why! Why!? I’d rather talk about pants.
Heh heh, now THAT’s a subject that is rightly banned from the blog!
Talking about this with my husband, I thought of a way of putting the key point that might help. I think a lot of us may be immediately inclined to think that periodic continence and the rejection of fertility treatments are different because one seems more active and the other more passive. It seems immediately plausible to us that this should make a big difference because, if we’ve had any previous experience with Catholic moral theory, we’re very used to the idea that there can be a salient difference between doing and allowing. We invoke the doing/allowing distinction all the time, for example in medical ethics where we want to distinguish between simply allowing a very old and ill person to die of an ailment, and bringing about their death ourselves with a lethal injection.
The doing/allowing distinction can often be quite significant. But it’s a red herring in this case. Doing/allowing distinctions become important in situations when we want to achieve a desirable end, but must rule out a particular means for doing it because the actions involved would be per se immoral. That’s not what’s going on here, however. Periodic continence doesn’t involve any acts that are immoral per se. It’s not wrong to make observations about one’s natural cycles, it’s not wrong to enjoy marital relations during infertile periods, and it’s not wrong to abstain from them in fertile periods. If there is a moral defect, it involves a selfish/disordered attitude towards marriage and life generally. And depending on the circumstances, the refusal to use fertility aids might well be indicative of the exact same defect.
My wife and I recommend the small book “Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence” by Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure, S.J. and Bl. Claude de la Colombiere, S.J., ISBN 0-89555-216-7, available from TAN Books & Publishers, http://www.tanbooks.com. We wish we had known about it when we were younger, instead of being, as we were, indoctrinated into NFP and the contraceptive mentality that seems inseparable from such indoctrination.
Yes, I’ve seen that one, actually. It has some nice thoughts — something of the spirit of Thomas a Kempis and the Little Flower. It’s not really responsive to the question I’ve asked here, but worth reading nonetheless.
“Some people might (consciously or unconsciously) mainly be happy to avoid the burden of children.”
While this is theoretically possible, I have never encountered it. In my experience, anyone using the “stork method” has apparently wanted children and been motivated by a desire to trust God as fully as possible. I see no good reason to doubt this.
In contrast, I have encountered (and at one point was myself one of) people who use NFP with a contraceptive attitude. I do not question that NFP can be done in a sinful way and I suspect that many, probably most, of the “stork” people have seen this sinful practice of NFP and choose the “stork method” in order to reject such sin.
I do agree with the comment that infertility is often a sign of general health problems and that couples who are unable to conceive ought to investigate this.
“[M]any of this blog’s contributors/regular guests are inclined to see NFP as something that should be used only when there are extremely serious reasons, such as warfare or borderline starvation.”
No not “extremely” serious reasons, just serious reasons.
Missing Sunday Mass can be a mortal sin, (and probably a great sin than using outright artificial contraception) but is in fact no sin at all if for just run-of-the-mill serious reasons.
My wife missed Sundays Mass a few weeks ago and it had nothing to do with war, pestilence or starvation. All four of our young kids (including the baby) had strep throat.
Same principle applies to NFP - “serious” reasons. Read the Pope Pious XII address to the Midwives of Italy. More importantly find a good TRADITIONAL priest and discuss the specifics in the confessional.
Well, thanks, JSP, but it’s not something I’m worried about just now. More importantly, I don’t really want to discuss it here, since we’ve pretty much done that topic to death in past threads.
But I hope your kids feel better.
For a couple to use NFP throughout the entire fertile time of their marriage in order to avoid pregnancy is immoral. NFP is Natural Family Planning, not Natural Family Prevention. It is not “Catholic contraception.” It is planning FOR children. And it is not the ideal. It is allowed. The ideal is for a couple to place their complete trust and confidence in God who knows us better than we know ourselves.
By the same token, while a couple may seek aids to fertility such as Clara mentions, and to do so would be using the intelligence and will in a non-sinful way to achieve a good end, there is no obligation to do any more than trust in God’s providence. The question becomes which of the two is of greater merit: to seek external (non-sinful) means or to trust in God? Clearly the answer is to trust in God.
The real question is, I believe, is a married couple obliged to procreate? The answer is no. They are required to do nothing to prevent procreation, but they are not required to procreate. They cannot be. Only the marital act is required. (A marriage that is not consummated may be disolved.) But no one can legislate as to what will result as the end of that act. If there is no moral obligation to procreate, then there is no moral obligation to seek an intervention such as Clara describes, although to do so is morally neutral.
I’m sorry, Father… I don’t mean to be obtuse, but… given the premises you’re offering, I don’t see how the perpetual use of NFP to prevent pregnancy can be immoral. There is, as you say, no obligation to procreate, and only the marital act is required. But couples that practice periodic continence are engaging in marital relations, and they do nothing to frustrate the potential fruitfulness of any particular marital act. So why is it immoral?
(As you see above, I think that it is immoral to do this, but it’s important for my question to pin down exactly why. If it’s a matter of general attitude, then we would have to look at the attitudes of couples who refuse to seek fertility treatments. As you might have gathered, it is largely my observations of the attitudes of Stork Method advocates that have caused me to reflect on this question, because this group also seems to me prone to certain evil tendencies which should be given more attention. But I digress.)
Perpetual practice of NFP is immoral because of the intention. A couple who perpetually practices NFP would only do so because they don’t want to have children.
It is not immoral to practice NFP if the intention is to put off or space out child bearing since the intention is to have children when they judge it best and, as you pointed out, they are engaging in marital relations and doing nothing to furstrate the potential fruitfulness of any particular marital act. The Church allows this but it is not the ideal. Because it is not ideal does not mean it is immoral. It just means that it would be better to trust in God.
I hope this helps clarify my points.
Now, Clara, having reread your original post, I have another thought.
A couple is not practicing NFP (or any other contraceptive method) and there is no conception. They have two options. They can continue on as they have been or they can choose to act. As far as acting they have two choices as well. They can pray and resign themselves to God’s will or they can seek moral medical assistance. The choice to pray and resign themselves to God’s will *is acting* and is more meritorious than choosing to seek moral medical assistance because it places all their hope and trust in God.
It seems from what you wrote in your original post that placing their hope and trust in God is doing nothing. This is incorrect. It a an act of great virtue, far greater than seeking medical assistance or even the knowledge available in NFP classes. Acting or doing does not require physical action. That is why we are obliged to confess sins of thought. That is why by deciding to commit a sin we have, in fact, commited the sin even if we have not carried it out.
“As you might have gathered, it is largely my observations of the attitudes of Stork Method advocates that have caused me to reflect on this question, because this group also seems to me prone to certain evil tendencies which should be given more attention.”
Clara, I still say you have given us a straw man. Do you actually know of a stork mentality couple who “cultivate deliberate ignorance” so as to avoid children. Maybe my world is small, but the childless couples I know among traditionalists ended up adopting children, some of them handicapped. It will be interesting to hear the other evil tendencies of this group.
All right, yes, I suppose I owe you a more thorough explanations at this point of my various reasons for thinking about this. Actually the immediate impetus was a conversation I was having the other day with a non-Catholic philosopher friend, in which I was trying to explain the difference between infertile marital relations and sodomy. I was explaining Dietrich von Hildebrandt’s formula about how “children are the end of the marital act, and love is the meaning” and one of the points I made was that a married heterosexual couple, even if they’re virtually certain that conception will not occur through a particular act, is still coming as close as they can under the circumstances to an actually procreative act. Which raises the question of whether they might be obliged also to remove any obstacles (at least the most obvious or treatable ones) that frustrated the act and prevented it from reaching its natural end. So.
But I’d wondered about this question before. Whenever this topic comes up, I always hear a lot about the “contraceptive mentality” that was promulgated by the NFPers, and about the superiority of trusting God. And while I can’t quite agree with Louis that a contraceptive mentality is inevitably coupled with the learning of NFP, I do believe that there have been strains of it in what I sometimes think of as “NFP culture.” (That is, that crowd of people who think that NFP is absolutely wonderful and the answer to everything.) I agree that this mentality is morally dangerous, and I think in a way it is the fruit of a sort of excessive fixation on the method. NFP can be, to use a nauseating buzz-word, “empowering.” And people were delighted to be told that it was sanctioned by the Church. Especially when they’re wrapped up in NFP culture, people can begin to get a little too delighted with how much they are able to do and control, and in their joy over the method, they lose sight of more important things — the goods of marriage and family.
What interests me more, though (perhaps because I personally encounter it more) is the anti-NFP culture that I see a lot among traditional Catholics. Like so many things about traditional Catholics, it’s reactionary. Having seen some of the possible abuses of NFP, these Catholics reject it almost wholesale and suggest instead that people shouldn’t learn about fertility, shouldn’t avail themselves of medical treatments for infertility, and instead should just let nature take its course, whether that means 18 children or none. This has enough marks of being a “philosophy” in its own right (I’ve never seen anyone argue that NFP and fertility treatments are absolutely evil, but there seems to be a consensus among many traditional Catholics that it is morally better not to use them), and is far enough outside the mainstream, that I gave it the name “Stork Method”, because it does seem to me like a self-consciously chosen approach to building a family. (That is to say, it isn’t just “the default”, because I don’t think most people would follow these precepts if they didn’t subscribe to the philosophy. Empirically, most people don’t.)
So, what are the defects of the Stork Method? Well, in the first place, it falls into the same trap as the NFP culture, in that it focuses too much on method. The NFP-happy people began to feel that the method justified itself, which allowed them to lose sight of the goods of marriage. The Stork Method people, by contrast, place most weight on rejecting particular methods; it is apparently morally better to remain childless (that is, not to enjoy one of the great the goods of marriage) than to learn NFP, or at the very least the decision to actively pursue that good through medical means is “morally neutral.” You can see how this method-fixation could breed vices of its own. If a woman, upon learning that she was unable to conceive without treatment, said to her husband, “Well, great, it seems God values my career more!” that would seem to me to be missing the larger picture. And there are lots of other goals that couples might value, which would lead them to conclude that they’d just as soon not investigate further the reasons for their infertility. The Stork Method opens the way for that sort of thing by taking the non-use of fertility aids to be particularly virtuous.
I also sometimes worry that it fosters insensitivity towards those who do have fertility problems. As an example, I remember my annoyance once when reading a thread on a blog (back before this one existed, when I still had no strong views on these matters) in which a woman was asking questions about permissible fertility methods, and another woman with several children came in advising her to “trust God, not science.” She followed it up with a story, intended to be inspirational, about some complications she’d once had during pregnancy, the power of getting the whole family (including her older children!) to pray about it, etc. I’m sure she felt she was delivering pearls of wisdom, but the whole thing struck me as insensitive, even bordering on cruel. For a woman with multiple children to indicate to a childless woman that she would be “untrusting” to seek medical help is rather like a person who’s always been healthy advising a cancer patient, “don’t go in for all that radiation stuff, just trust God.” This is particularly hard on women in traditional Catholic cultures, who may well suffer negative judgments from their neighbors for not having children (or not having very many), but who are then dissuaded by some from seeking medical treatments for their fertility problems. We never had this kind of messiness in the Mormon church, as far as I can recall… the focus was just on the fact that families are great and we should all be eager to have them. It just seems sad that the war between the NFP and anti-NFP people should so often obscure that (much more important) point.
Father Bailey seems to summarize the position well when he speaks of the “two options” of infertile couples. But I don’t understand why these are mutually exclusive. Of course prayer and acceptance of God’s will are very important, always. But we don’t normally seem to see a tension between prayer and more earthly strategies. Are there other areas of life where we advise people to forego normal rational methods of pursuing their righteous goals, in the name of divine trust? When someone has a sickly child, do we advise the parents, “No, don’t take him to the doctor, just pray”? When someone needs a house or a job, do we normally say, “No, don’t check the paper, just trust God to work it out”? I guess you could make an argument that this would be the best way to go, but it doesn’t seem like we ever do make that argument… except in the case of fertility. I don’t know how to explain this, except to suppose that it’s a kind of overcorrection against the non-trusting attitudes displayed by some of the more enthusiastic promoters of NFP.
Married couples don’t have a positive obligation to actually procreate. Nonetheless, children are one of the signature goods of marriage, and if children fail to appear, the marriage really isn’t reaching its appropriate natural end. It seems the couple should not be indifferent to the reasons for this. Of course we might consider both medical and spiritual reasons; it’s good and natural to be always wondering, “What is God’s will for me in my life?” I can agree that there are times when it might be right for us to forego certain means to achieving our ends, in the name of trusting God. (”No, I’d like to get married, but I won’t join the singles site… if God wants me to get married, he’ll find a way for me to meet the right person.”) But there can also be times when we use that as an excuse for laziness or greed or prideful commitment to other goals. If that’s true in other areas of life, I see no reason why this should be any different.
Just to clear up a point, the reason I spoke of two options was to point out that choosing to pray and trust in God is a valid option and that it is taking action. I did not mean to imply that the two options are mutually exclusive. They are not. They ought to be employed together. As someone said, God helps those who help themselves. To use prayer and trust in God as an excuse is not virtuous.
Clara, it seems that you are reacting to traditional Catholics who, as you accurately point out, are often reactionary. Being reactionary, that is, not stepping back and logically thinking through issues and situations with their myriad of subtleties and factors is wrong. It shows the terrible ignorance of the faith that many traditionalists have. And, depending on their “cutoff” date (Pius XII, Trent, Pius X, etc,) everyone else and everything after that date is heresy and of satan. That is not traditionalism. True traditionalism recognizes Christ present in the Church and seeks to think and act in accord with Christ and the Church which cannot be different. Remember, just as the cafeteria is closed to “liberals” it is also closed to “conservatives.” The reality is that there are no liberals, conservatives, traditionalists, reformists, or whatever label one chooses. There are those who are Catholic and those who are not. If you fork left or right you are moving away from Christ and the Church. Period.
Holy Church has determined that NFP is morally acceptable. To say otherwise is to go against the Church. The woman in your most recent example with several children recommended prayer and trust in God. That is good. But, she had no right to speak against morally acceptable methods of improving fertility. The Church alone speaks on morals. And those who judge their neighbors are sinning, traditionalists included.
God can never be an excuse for “laziness, greed, or prideful commitment to other goals.” That is immoral. Unfortunately many use God in this way, and this will not be excused in God’s Judgement.
Amen, Father. I think I fully understand you now, and everything you say makes sense. Thank you for being so patient!
“(That is to say, it isn’t just “the default”, because I don’t think most people would follow these precepts if they didn’t subscribe to the philosophy. Empirically, most people don’t.)”
Who are most people?
I dare say if you interview of billions of people who live outside the 1st World, they would at best laugh at you, more likely run you out of town, for bringing up NFP.
Can you imagine the Apostles and Our Lady discussing ways of promoting NFP in the Church?
No.
Traditional Catholic morality is no longer the default position anywhere. Now we need to be unprogrammed from 200 years of Judeo-Masonic-Liberal philosophy, before we can approach traditionalism understandings of human nature again.
Father B says, “Holy Church has determined that NFP is morally acceptable.”
Respectfully Father, I think it would have been better to say Holy Church has determined that NFP can be morally acceptable.
Have you read Pius XII address to the midwives of Italy?
It’s not very natural to picture Our Lady and the Apostles discussing any medical subject; nonetheless, I don’t imagine they were universally opposed to medical science. And whether or not they’ve heard of NFP, I do think that “most people” who want children and find it difficult to have them, avail themselves of whatever medical aid is available. Even in the Old Testament we see holy women, not only praying for children, but attempting such medicinal solutions as are known at the time (Leah and Rachel, for example.) And anyone interested in their fertility today should learn NFP, because it’s an excellent way of gathering relevant data.
I think you’ll find that if you cut your sample down to women in countries where information on this method is available who are trying to have children, then yes, most of them know it.
I think maybe sometimes you should reflect a bit more before you assume that you know what “Traditional Catholic morality” would say about a subject.
I haven’t read Pius XII’s address to the midwives of Italy. However, I am getting the feeling that you are using this address to prove a point. Let me say from the outset that if you are going to use this address by invoking papal infallibility we need not discuss this further. It is not an infallible document and what the Holy Father of blessed memory communicated does not enjoy infallibility. If you want to know why read the documents of Vatican I which are infallible.
Please understand, JSP, that the reason I say we need not discuss this further is that we will get nowhere since, while what Pius XII said may, in fact, be true, I have found discourse impossible when infallibility is invoked. Humanae Vitae has a greater claim to infallibility but even there the claim is dubious. Again, that does not mean the document is not true. Papal Infallibility is one of the most misunderstood Catholic teachings and one that if not correctly understood only becomes a circular argument.
I do not argue that NFP can be used immorally. In fact, if you read my previous posts you will see that I say exactly that. But, because it can be used sinfully does not mean that it is immoral in itself.
I have just read Pius XII’s “Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951.” He does not say anywhere that NFP is immoral. He does say that it can be used immorally. This is exactly what I said in previous posts and if you reread the Allocution and my posts you will find that I am in agreement with the Venerable Holy Father. Why is there this agreement? Because we have both arrived at our opinions by applying solid moral principles which can only lead to agreement.
But, let me reiterate, that something can be used immorally does not make it immoral in itself. Chopping with an axe can be used to murder someone which is an immoral act. Chopping with an axe can be used to chop wood for heat or shelter which is a moral act. Because chopping with an axe can be used for an evil end does not render chopping with an axe immoral.
JSP, you wrote “Respectfully Father, I think it would have been better to say Holy Church has determined that NFP can be morally acceptable.”
[The following is to show the process of reasoning out a statement. I understand what and why JSP wrote what he did. I thought it would be good to present some basic moral principles that might be helpful to readers. I am taking it as a premise that NFP corrosponds to Catholic moral teaching. My intent is not to prove that it does so, but to approach JSP's statement and show that NFP, if moral, is always moral.]
To say this means that something is both moral and immoral. That can never be. Something is morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral. In this case we can exclude moral neutrality since means are either moral or immoral. If we can say something is both moral and immoral depending on the circumstances, then we have not broken it down sufficiently so as to look at every aspect of the issue. To say “NFP can be morally acceptable” means that it can be further broken down, in this case to examining the means and the end. And, as we will see, NFP is a means, not an end.
When discussing morality a distinction must always be made between something that is immoral in itself and something that can be used to reach an immoral end. It can be that both the means and the end are immoral. It can be that the means alone are immoral hence the saying “the ends never justify the means.” Evil means can never be used to achieve a moral end. It can be that the means are moral and the end is not. Finally it can be that the means and end are both moral.
In reaching a conclusion as to whether or not NFP is immoral or not (and it is moral or it is not moral) we look only at NFP in itself. There is nothing immoral in NFP itself: it corrosponds to Catholic sexual morality as taught by the Church (showing this is not the point of this post). Therefore it is not immoral. So, the means are moral.
The end, however, may be moral or immoral. If the end is to conceive and bare children in a responsibe manner according to the norms determined by Church teaching then the end is moral and the means may be used. If the end is to prevent conception habitually and during the entire fertile period of the marriage, then the end is immoral and the means, though moral, may not be used. The means remain moral even though the end is immoral but moral means may be used only to achieve a moral end.
The means and the end are two different things.
In our discussion, the means (NFP) are always moral while the end may be a moral end or an immoral end.
It might be helpful to look at it this way.
NFP is moral. This statement is either true or not true. It is one or the other. It cannot be both, for something cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same place. If the statement is true it is always and everywhere true. Otherwise it is false. If the statement is false then NFP is immoral since it cannot be both moral and immoral. But we know that it is not immoral because Holy Church tells us that it is moral. Therefore it is always and everywhere true that NFP is moral.
Father,
I think your making an outstanding philosophical argument, but pastorally, for the common man, it’s bunk.
Couldn’t you similarly post on blogs throughout the WWW something like “I Fr. Bailey say SEX is moral! Yes, you heard me right boys and girls sex is moral. This is Catholic teaching! In case you missed it, I say it again, SEX is moral!” What good would this do to say this and leave it at that? (Unless your fighting some sort of heresy that teaches no one, including husbands and wives, should be having sex.)
Since in Catholic morality intentions play such a central role in determining sinfulness, does it do anyone any good at all to discuss things on such an abstract level?
On the matter of Pope Pius XII, I’m not claiming that Pope Pius XII’s address was infallible. But it’s one of the most technically detailed teachings on the subject of periodic continence from the Vicar of Christ. So, it should be given our obedience, since no other teaching to the contrary, be it from a pope or from some other traditional Catholic source, exists. That you’ve never read it prior to today (am I correct to assume this?) is an unfortunate commentary in itself.
Father, you say, “If the end is to conceive and bare children in a responsibe manner according to the norms determined by Church teaching then the end is moral and the means may be used.”
What are these norms? Where are these Church teachings? Which can be used to determine the morality of “the ends” for using NFP..
There came a point in my marriage where I realized that I was sick to death of charts and themometers a trying to figure out why I didn’t looke anything like pictures in the NFP book and I made a decision: forget it all. Just go for it and trust God. He won’t send me kids because He knows full well that I’d be lousy at that. The Stork method can be risky if you think having kids is a nuisance but it’s a lot better for a satisfying marriage.
JSP, my understanding of this blog is that it is precisely a place for philosophical arguemnt. If I’m wrong on that, then someone please let me know.
That being said, my last post was an attempt to explain why I think it is better to say NFP is moral in response to what you wrote which I quoted at the head of the post. I was not responding to a person who came up to me and asked, “Father, is NFP moral?” It was not intended to be nor was it written as a pastoral answer. As I said, I understand this blog to be about scholarly and philosophical discourse but then again, I love this stuff and can get carried away.
Now, I would like to respond to what you wrote.
Philosophy cannot be “bunk” for the common man. Holy Church will not allow any man preparing for ordination to study theology until he has a thorough command of philosophy. All of the great theologians, especially Augustine and Aquinas, base every theological premise on philosophy. It is impossible to understand theology without philosophy. All Catholic morality is based on philosophical ethical principles. All theology depends on philosophy, so to say it is “bunk” for anyone is a rather limited view that is held by evangelical protestants. Now, do I expect Joe Layman to be well grounded in philosophy? No. But I do expect him to admit when he doesn’t know something and ask an appropriate authority whom I hope will be able to answer his question or point him to someone who can. This is the responsibility of every Catholic. It is a basic catechism lesson that we cannot act when in doubt. We must first resolve the doubt by study and research or by asking someone who can help us, usually a priest. So, though the common man does not engage in a philosophical discourse, his priest had better do so.
Could I do as you say and post that “sex is moral?” Yes I could. Sex absolutely is moral. The misuse of sex is immoral. However, it seems you are implying that I believe I could do that with impunity. I could not. It would be irresponsible since I know it would be taken out of context. But I would not do that. It would be absurd. That whole paragraph has me wondering what you are getting at. Do you think I am speaking on my own authority? I don’t claim to be and if I have given that impression I apologize. What I have written is in agreement with Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.*
*(If you do not accept the authority and validity of these popes then it is pointless to continue on this issue as we will never be in agreement. You can accept them or not, as you will, but I suspect neither of us would budge on this issue if we do disagree. And if we disagree, I do not judge you, think you stupid, going to hell, etc. How can I? I don’t know you. I say this because of previous experiences where I’ve had invective hurled at me and been personally attacked rather than my views being critiqued. You have every right to disagree with me or critique my views. You have no right to attack me personally. There are a lot of personal attacks in the Catholic blogsphere and I refuse to be part of it any longer. We could even be in agreement and just not expressing ourselves well. You are and have been a gentleman/lady and I appreciate your questions. If you feel I have been unfail, please tell me so I can apologize and correct my behavior. I am often most blind to myself.)
As to the teaching of Pius XII being given our assent, that is true, but there are different degrees of assent. (You can read about this in the Roman Catechism or Ott’s theology manual.) However, the document is not addressed to the Church. It is for a specific group of people in a particular place. That does not mean we should ignore it. It does mean that it must be taken in the context Pius XII meant it. If he intended that it be adressed to the Universal Church he would have done so. It is important to understand in what context he was speaking. The pope speaking to a particular group is very different from a pope speaking to the Universal Church. When the Pope speaks to the Church then all must assent and obey. Thus all Catholics are bound by Humanae Vitae which Paul VI addressed to the Church.
You wrote that we should obey Pius’ XII address to Italian midwives since there is no teaching to the contrary, “be it from a pope or from some other traditional Catholic source.” What do you mean by a “traditional Catholic source?” If you mean a source that comes from the Tradition, then yes. But if you mean from a traditionalist source, then no. Such a source is no more Catholic than a liberationist source. As I said in a previous post, there are Catholics and those who are not Catholics. I think we have to drop the labels. They imply that one can pick and choose as one wishes or that there are different kinds of Catholics. One is Catholic or one is not. Dividing the Church into groups is falling into the hands of satan who uses it against us. Christ himself said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
You ask “What are thse norms? Where are thse Church teachings” of which I speak? They are found in: “Humanae Vitae,” “Evangelium Vitae,” “Mulieris Dignitatem,” “Familiaris Consortio” “Vitae Mysterium,” “Familia a Deo Instituta,” and “Deus Caritas Est.” Unfortunately there are no modern manuals like there were in the “good old days” that gather Church teaching together and one must go hither and yon to find everything. I would think that in these days of the internet and computers it would be much easier to gather information together but I haven’t found anything that is complete.
Finally, you asked if you were correct in assuming that this was the first time I had read Pius’ XII address to the Catholic Midwives of Italy. Yes, you are correct. And I agree, it is an unfortunate commentary. I was “educated” in one of the worst seminaries in existance. It was rife with heresy, thoroughly modernist and protestant. I had to learn what was taught and then, on my own, learn what the Church taught. I don’t exaggerate when I say I was nearly broken. But, with the help of some good, holy, and solid priests and the never-failing protection and guidance of Our Lady and St. Alphonsus I made it through. But I am still trying to make up for what was lacking in my education along with everything else I have to do. Please, pray for the truly Catholic seminarians in such situations. They are up against almost impossible odds. But with the help of our prayers they will be priests Christ can use to build up his Church.
Well, I’m no theologian, but you seem to me to be doing pretty well, Father. But I’ll pray for God to further bless your efforts, because I certainly agree that it is good and fitting for a priest especially to have a firm understanding of Catholic moral and theological principles.
As for Joe Six Pack, I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what your concern is here. You want to emphasize that the use of periodic continence to prevent pregnancy can be immoral when it is motivated by a wrong intention. Everyone here agrees with that, I think. Certain parts of Fr. Bailey’s commentary (or mine, for that matter) might perhaps be misunderstood if they were taken out of context, but that’s true for almost any argument. And it doesn’t seem to have happened here. So what’s the worry? I thought we were having a good philosophical conversation.
I’ve read Pius XII’s address to midwives. (I’m not sure I’d fault a person for not having read it — it’s probably not at the top of must-reads for Catholics generally — but its one that Trads like to cite in discussions of, shall we say, women’s issues. So in my case it was prudent to read it.) I can’t recall anything that would apply to this discussion. He talks about the use of periodic continence to prevent pregnancy, but he doesn’t say anything disparaging about the use of natural fertility signs (which is what NFP is really about) for achieving pregnancy. Nor do I remember any passages about medicinal treatments for infertility (except he does, I think, condemn artificial insemination.) So I don’t see how either Fr. Bailey or I are disagreeing with Pius XII.
I’m still pondering Fr. Bailey’s discussion of moral goods and bads and neutrals. There are many perplexing questions here, particularly when it comes to distinguishing between goods and neutrals… but we don’t need to get into all that on this thread. It’s a thought-provoking discussion. I’ll think about it some more.
Dear Father,
I’m glad that Catholic priests study philosophy as a solid foundation for understanding Catholic theology. I don’t have a problem with philosophy in general; just it’s direct application in moral instruction of the laity.
And I thank God for priests like you who are so committed to the flock that you go above and beyond and learn what the seminaries have failed to teach.
I hate abstract argument. I’m not a scholar. I don’t live in a scholar’s world. I live in the real world - with real people - real moral decisions - and real consequences (temporal and eternal). I also hate seeing so many Catholic laity resorting to abstractly written (all be they doctrinally sound) papal or Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents for moral guidance. And this happens a lot.
Case in point about the usefulness of abstract argument. one of the frequent commentators on this blog said at one point that “Viewing pornography was not morally evil.” and she insisted on speaking so abstractly on this topic, almost with a giddiness.
But isn’t this where all of this abstract papal and other post-Vatican II writing can lead us? What’s to prevent me from reading every word ever written by JP II and after this most monumental of tasks, spending the afternoon at the beach checking out all the nice looking gals in bikinis - because me intention in going there is to give glory to God by admiring the beauty of his creation? (I’ve actually heard a priest advocate this practice by the way. And he wasn’t a “liberal.” He was a very committed ‘conservative,’ JP II-we-love-you, Novus Ordo priest.)
I’m not a trad heretic or schismatic. I accept all the teachings of all the popes and all the councils. My problem with the post-Vatican II popes is not their teachings but indeed their failure to teach.
The question remains what are the norms and moral guidelines for the proper use of NFP?
You cite “Humanae Vitae,” “Evangelium Vitae,” “Mulieris Dignitatem,” “Familiaris Consortio” “Vitae Mysterium,” “Familia a Deo Instituta,” and “Deus Caritas Est.”
Where in those documents do I as a Catholic lay person find out when it is morally permissible to use periodic continence? Where in those documents do you as a Catholic priest find the information to instruct the faithful in the confessional or from the pulpit?
I still maintain that Pope Pius’s address to midwives is critically important to the overall understanding of this issue. Not because this was an ex cathedra statement. But because it is the most detailed and concrete papal articulation on this modern moral dilemma. And nothing else contradicts it. When I said can you offer some other papal or traditional moral instruction that contradicts Pope Pius’s, I meant something of equal moral weight – as opposed to something from Fr. Richard McBrien or the like. I wasn’t condemning everything written after V II as non-traditional. If JP II gave an allocution on periodic continence and he went into the level of detail that Pius did, then I’d rely in that document. But it doesn’t exist.
Again, I’m not in any sense against philosophy nor am I an “evangelical protestant.” But like all heresies, evangelical Protestantism has a sliver of truth at its core. There’s nothing wrong with speaking simply. Our Lord taught in a very simple manner. Our Faith can really be summed up with Love the Lord and love your neighbor; and If you love me keep my commandments. But of course packed in those two phrases is the entire universe of our Holy Faith. They are some of the divine paradoxes (Jesus True God and True Man, Faith and Reason, Church as human and divine, etc. etc.) which make up our faith – paradoxes which our the basis for just about all the heresies because the heretics tend to come out on one side or the other of the paradox rather than following the Church – whose job is to make clear and instruct the laity.
Also, just to hit again upon your statement to the effect, “If the end is to conceive and bare children in a responsibe manner according to the norms determined by Church teaching then the end is moral and the means may be used.”
Can you expound more on what you mean by ‘a responsible manner.’
A married couple is NEVER morally obligated to use periodic continence. Do you agree with this?
So can a married couple procreate in an irresponsible manner? Please explain.
Father,
Disregard my last post. I see in your original few posts, you have answered these questions.
Father Bailey,
Something I have been thinking throughout this thread is that I feel that I have a clearer understanding of this subject through reading your comments than I have ever had before. Thank you.
JSP, now that I know of Pope Pius XII’s Address to Catholic Midwives it is something I would refer to in preaching and in the confessional.
As to the other documents I mentioned they are, unfortunately, encyclicals. I say unfortuneately because they are gererally not direct, simple and clear in presenting the teaching of the Church. They come out of the rarefied air of the Vatican and Rome with its universities and institutes. They have to be studied and pored over. And, we can no longer rely on the manuals of theology and/or morals like Denziger or Ott since no one seems to be producing any. The manuals used to be updated regularly as they were what was used to teach in seminaries. We do have the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is helpful, but that too isn’t always as clear as it could be. So, unfortunately, the only documents there are aren’t helpful if you’re looking for a simple direct answer.
So, I think that if we want to know the norms and moral guidelines for the use of NFP we have to “do the homework” as it were. I don’t know anyone who teaches NFP and it isn’t covered in the seminary. I can only say that it is moral unless it is used consistantly and perpetually during the entire fertile period of marriage because the couple doesn’t want children. I think what you’re getting at is how does a couple decide if they can morally make use of NFP at a particular point in their marriage. I know of no guidelines and I’m not sure there can be any because each situation is different and there are so many variables.
If someone asked me in confession if they could use NFP I would want to know why? For how long? Is it a matter of convenience? Is there a true need to put off the conception of children? What is it? Do you forsee children in the future? Are there medical issues involved? Etc. I would ask the person if they and their partner would be willing to meet with me after they have sat down and asked themselves why they want to use it at that time and be very honest about it. I think responding in any other way would be irresponsible on my part. I would also stress that if and when we meet it falls under the seal of the confessional so they will know I will keep the discussion in the strictest confidence.
In preaching I have said the same things but in a general way, stressing that the couple should discuss using NFP first and then meet with a priest. And if the priest puts them off or says “Oh sure, go ahead” without sitting down and talking with them they should find another priest.
Again, I think this is one of those situations that talking with a preist is essential. It’s a very difficult thing to do both for priest and people, but that’s part of what priests are for…to give moral guidance. And moral guidance, I have found, is usually to specific to be addressed in preaching except in a most general way.
I’m afraid I haven’t answered your question in a straightforward way, but I don’t think that’s possible. Morality isn’t always simple. Even “thou shalt not steal” isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. Unfortunately the norms and moral guidelines concerning NFP must be gleaned from a wide variety of sources. And even if their were a list of guidelines, once man gets involved they have to be applied to a particualar situation and that is the complicated part.
As to the issue of abstract arguement, the conclusions of both the blog commenter and the priest you mention are wrong. I think we would agree on that. I have heard those positions before. They have taken statements out of context and built their arguements on falacious premeses. If one of the premises is not true, the conclusion cannot be true, no matter how you try to justify or prove it. Yes, they used abstract argument, but they had no clue as to what they were doing. They didn’t know their basic logic. And they were doing it for selfish and immoral reasons - to justify sin. Sin can never be justified. It’s as if they have said 1+1=3. For 3 to be the true answer to the statement 1+1=3 one or both of the (1)s need to be corrected or the statement cannot be true. Arguement is just like math. All the premises must be true for the conclusion to be true. And like math, arguement can have multiple variable and complications. So, they employed false premises and manipulated them for their own end. Unfortunately this happens all the time and it can be very subtle and misleading. Look at what’s happened in the Church over the last 40 years. It’s no surprise given that the father of lies was once the angel of light.
How’s that for more philosophy!
Clara, I agree with you. There can be no doubt that there is an “anti-NFP culture among traditional Catholics.” For them the N in NFP stands for NOVUS. Likewise they are against using “fertility drugs,” with good reason. To be fair I think for the most part they do believe in doctors, as I mentioned above. If they want to boycott drugs and NFP, I don’t see the problem. There are other legitimate resources out there and other moral options. If these and prayer don’t work, there’s adoption. I don’t see this as falling in the contraceptive mentality and for all the faults cited here against traditionalists, I don’t think hypocrisy is one of them when it comes to wanting large families. To say that some use the stork method to avoid children is like saying that some traditionalists refuse to go to the Novus Ordo, just to justify sleeping-in when the TLM is not available.
After ruling out sin in any method mentioned, there still is the legitimate question of which is better. Also you may want to consider if God allows certain things the way He once allowed polygamy and divorce “out of the hardness of peoples hearts.” Has the charity of the faithful grown so cold? He did say, “Think you, that when the Son of Man comes, He will find faith? I know that this question is not under discussion at this time.
I think we do have to face the fact that, “The cafeteria is open.” Soon after the Council, Catholics were given choices never before available. Today, we can choose the Novus Ordo, Communion in the hand, Communion from a layman or woman, Saturday attendance, annulments after 5 kids, cremation, weddings in a Protestant Church or on the beach, meat on Fridays, no penance during Lent, the new calendar, protestant seminaries, and books by De Chardin and Von Baltazar, NFP, and now fertility drugs. Rather than thinking of all the exceptional reasons how we can accommodated each one to our needs, I think we should get into traditional line and forget the new choices served up.
The Church says that all the above is fine, and so I agree, you can’t judge people badly for making choices. If I were a priest, I could never see myself in good conscience giving Communion in the hand or say the Novus Ordo, and yet I don’t judge a priest adversely for doing so. But I should be allowed to say that the traditional way is better. And so it goes with all the issues.
As far as labels go, I think you need to identify yourself with the right cause. Religious order priests don’t just say, “I’m a priest” but “I’m a Dominican or Benedictine.” I know we’re all Church but I like to say, “I’m a Traditionalist.” It gives me that good sense of what my father spoke so highly of, Triumphalism.
“As to the issue of abstract arguement, the conclusions of both the blog commenter and the priest you mention are wrong. I think we would agree on that. I have heard those positions before. They have taken statements out of context and built their arguements on falacious premeses. If one of the premises is not true, the conclusion cannot be true, no matter how you try to justify or prove it. Yes, they used abstract argument, but they had no clue as to what they were doing. They didn’t know their basic logic. And they were doing it for selfish and immoral reasons - to justify sin.”
I have to chuckle as the original point of the now infamous pornography discussion was that rash judgment is a sin to which trads are particularly prone. And it is no small sin.
Father, you were not given all the facts in the case; JSP conveniently omitted the word ‘necessarily’ from his summary of my argument. The issue at stake was the principle that sin is subjective: it lies in the heart of man, not in the object of his sin. Money, or bikini-clad bodies, or fame, or any of the things which our disordered souls might covet are not objectively evil. The sin is in the lust, or the envy, or the greed which man chooses to indulge in his heart. Therefore, what might be an occasion of sin for one person (or even 99% of people) is not necessarily an occasion of sin for everyone. If an object of any kind is an occasion of sin for person A he is morally bound to avoid it, but if it isn’t then he is in no way bound.
It is important to understand the underlying principles of moral issues so that one may then apply those principles to the various situations which life presents.
So, please allow me to assure you, Father, that the issue at stake was not one of trying to justify sin of any kind, it was simply to distinguish between the sin and its object.
No, no, please! That argument was ridiculous, not to mention unpleasant, the first time. As you well know, Vicki, what really provoked people was not so much the philosophical claims as the pastoral application you suggested for them. But there’s no need to relive that nasty episode. Please, please just let it drop.
For Discipulus… it would be right to be critical of many of the things on your list. Even if not absolutely forbidden by the Church, they are in many respects not conducive to virtue, and in some cases I could explain to any interested party why they are not. However, I do not think it advisable to make decisions just on the basis of what the “Traditionalists” do. The mere desire to be identified with a particular group of people is not necessarily an adequate reason for behaving in a certain way. Anyway, I myself have no intention of adopting that as a principle for action.
The culture forged by self-identified Traditional Catholics is deeply reactionary. There’s some good reason for that, and I understand that, in times of great upheaval, the instinct to cling to anything old and reject anything new for the sake of tradition is quite natural. Many good things have been preserved by this instinct. In the longer term, though, we need to open up and start thinking things through. Reaction for reaction’s sake will ultimately pound all the life out of the faith (see my Living Liturgy post for a fuller explanation of this idea.) And there are some aspects of traditional Catholic culture that really need to be thought through.
This seems to be one. I wouldn’t fault people for staying away from certain fertility drugs — though the Church hasn’t condemned them, I can imagine some reasonable objections. But rejecting NFP, natural lubricants and so forth (again, we’re talking here about NFP as a fertility aid, not about periodic continence), is just irrational so far as I can see. I can see ways in which cremation, Communion in the hand, or having one’s wedding on the beach are not optimal ways to live life as a Catholic. I can’t see any such reasons for rejecting this, nor has anyone yet managed to give me any.
The only reason I ever hear for rejecting NFP is that it’s better to trust God. Of course it’s essential to trust God at all times, but that’s not really to the point. It would be just like the person who refused to research the ways in which a change of diet or an exercise program might help alleviate some of his medical problems, all in the name of “trusting God.” Trust in God is not incompatible with reasonable, moral earthly efforts to achieve good ends. There are a thousand other cases in which we don’t give it a second thought.
You seem certain, Discipulus, that there’s no harm in this ideology, but I disagree. In the first place, it’s always bad to paint something as morally questionable when it isn’t, particularly in family matters like these where people are especially prone to worry and guilt. Your suggestion that they can always just adopt seems a little callous to me. The adoption system in this country is tortuous, and while you do see some wonderful stories of children finding a good home, there are also heartbreaking ones of couples who are repeatedly promised children only to have the promise broken, of couples who aren’t allowed to have any of the available children because they don’t seem rich enough or sufficiently well-established, or because they’re not the right race. Some couples might be sufficiently intimidated that they just live without children, or with just the one or two that they managed to have without any fertility help. And it’s always a source of sadness not to be able to have your own biological offspring, no matter how joyful it might be to give a home to someone in need. Finally, any time you spread misunderstandings about family matters, they’re always prone to get into the wrong hands (or minds) and be misused. And that could certainly happen here, too.
Clara,
You gripe about people rehashing old debates on a new thread, but when you say things like the following:
“The only reason I ever hear for rejecting NFP is that it’s better to trust God.”
One can only get the impression that you are totally deaf to any argument going against your opinion.
Your dismissal of all arguments (including those articulated by Pope Pius XII) is very irritating. It would be like when you spend huge amounts of time trying to explain Catholic morality to a libertine only at the end of your efforts to have him say something like, “Oh, the bottom line with you Catholics is that you’re just against having fun.”
Your attempt at finding some loophole argument to support a liberal understanding of the use of periodic continence within marriage is like when the liberals ask for permission from the Holy See for the right of Catholic women to use condoms in case of rape.
JSP,
I think you still don’t understand what this discussion is about. This isn’t about the use of periodic continence. Periodic continence is a specific application of NFP that aims at avoiding pregnancy, and I’ve agreed that it can certainly be morally questionable. Everyone here agrees about this, I think.
This conversation is about use of NFP as an aid to fertility. In other words, this is about people using NFP when they’re trying to get pregnant. All NFP really is is a way of making observations about one’s natural cycles and the periods of fertility within them. That information can be used in multiple ways, and if I had to guess, I’d guess that a lot more people are using it these days in efforts to get pregnant than vice-versa. But be that as it may… this is the use of NFP that I’m claiming is morally unproblematic. And Pope Pius XII didn’t say anything about it in his speech.
Clara, you said: “But rejecting NFP…(as a fertility aid…) is just irrational so far as I can see.”
NFP has neither a monopoly nor copyright on how to bring children into the world. The fact that it is more known for preventing conception makes it suspect. Boycotting NFP classes and consulting a Catholic doctor bereft of NFP philosophy and the “Theology of the Body” keeps one from falling into the NFP culture trap, which you yourself deplore. Hardly irrational or reactionary—just cautiously thought out.
“The only reason I ever hear for rejecting NFP is that it’s better to trust God.”
I thought I made a another case against it in my description of it my first post above. Another thing it’s not very natural but if you insist it is, well the stork method is more natural. And according to Dymphna above the stork method is “a lot better for a satisfying marriage.”
“Your suggestion that they can always just adopt seems a little callous to me.”
You keep failing to grasp my position. “There are other legitimate resources out there and other moral options. If these and prayer don’t work, there’s adoption.” Notice adoption is at the bottom of the list; it’s when all else fails.
“The only reason I ever hear for rejecting NFP is that it’s better to trust God.”
OK. My bad. i read this another way…
Clara, you said:
“it’s always bad to paint something as morally questionable when it isn’t, particularly in family matters like these where people are especially prone to worry and guilt.”
Can the Stork Method be Immoral?
What’s your conclusion?
Well… sorry, but we may just have to agree to disagree. It still just seems reactionary and irrational to me. I mean, if you don’t trust yourself to avoid the “contraceptive mentality” trap, or if you just don’t want to deal with the silly rhetoric, there are books (and in many places classes) that aren’t specifically directed at Catholics looking to use periodic continence. They don’t always call it NFP, but it’s effectively the same thing. Actually, I myself have never taken an NFP class, and I deliberately bought a non-Catholic book to learn about this stuff, because I really wasn’t interested in the moral reflections of some random physician. (That’s what Pope Pius XII is for, right, JSP?) I just wanted the book for the clinical information. And that’s what it gave me.
It actually seems to me like “irrational” is exactly the right term for people who avoid NFP just because it seems disreputable. Let me explain. At the end of the day, there’s nothing magical about NFP. It’s just a source of information… information that’s highly relevant to people who want to conceive. Some of it’s new, some of it’s old, some of it you might figure out on your own or be told by your mother, and some of it you probably wouldn’t get without reading it in a book… but at the end of the day, all you’re really doing is making observations that give you information about your fertility. Now, a person who 1) wants to achieve a good objective, 2) knows of a rich source of information that would be highly relevant to that end, and 3) avoids it, is more or less the model of irrationality… provided of course that there is no compelling reason not to avail oneself of this resource. And there isn’t.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to from your first post, but I still haven’t seen what seems to me like a real reason. As I said before, consulting a doctor is fine, but before they run a series of tests, it would really make sense to try NFP first. Tests are expensive and much of the information they’re designed to gather could quite easily be obtained through the techniques of NFP. Paying lots of money for something you could learn for free… to me that just seems pretty irrational.
As far as helping your marriage, I hear a lot of testimonials both ways on that. Some are of Dymphna’s persuasion, but I’ve also heard many people say that they find that NFP really enhances their married life. Personally I don’t see why it should make that much difference either way, but anyway, I think we have to call it a draw on that point.
I think that Fr. Bailey’s axe analogy is actually great to describe what seems to me to be going on here. Very wicked deeds can be done with axes — murder, for example. That doesn’t mean that an axe is per se an evil instrument if it’s used in moral ways. Now, suppose we had a cult of assassins in this country, who used axes to do really heinous things (to murder priests and religious, say.) Would it then make sense for Catholics everywhere to say, “Well, that’s it. Now that I see what an evil instrument this is, I’m chopping my wood with a kitchen knife.” No. That would be ridiculous. We need to distinguish the tool itself (which is perfectly good) from the evil uses some people make of it. It’s the same with NFP, and the people who won’t use it because they think it’s too “Novus” are very similar to the people who chop their wood with the kitchen knife.
OK Clara, I boycott buying axes made in Red China; its just one of those irrational things of mine. If I can get them someplace else, I’ll go there. Books not made by promoters of NFP, fine. I think you have to decide on which side of the river you’re standing.
Vicki, thanks for the clarification. Yes, sin is subjective, but that doesn’t mean that some things aren’t morally evil in themselves, pornography being one of them. But I do understand the point you were making and it is correct. To illustrate the same point without using an example that is a moral evil in itself how about this: For a thief to go into a store that is an “easy mark” is an occasion of sin but for the majority of people it is not.
And I most definitely agree that rash judgement is a sin to which trads are particularly prone. God help you if you point it out or try to fight it!
But, something tells me that this is not a discussion to open up again and still be welcome here! {];-)
Thanks, Father. Just trust me, the first time we got into that (almost two years ago now) it wasn’t pretty.