View Comments      Email Article       Printable Version

Published: June 8, 2008

Of crucifixion and NFP

An invitation to a civil discussion about contraception, NFP, and related topics

Notes from a Cultural Madhouse

By Christopher Zehnder

(Editor's Note: Today's Madhouse was originally published on Feb. 18, 2007. Mr. Zehnder renews his call for our readers to engage in a thoughtful discussion about contraception, NFP, and related topics.)

Catholic morality is an exacting morality -- which is why it is so roundly attacked from all sides these days. Economic libertarians, for instance, will assail the Church for her insistence that economics must be governed by the moral law and, even, by the civil law. Social libertarians complain that the Church’s rejection of divorce or same-sex marriage is unduly harsh and insensitive. National defense libertarians reject the Church’s just war teaching as unrealistic or even suicidal.

But the Church is nowhere more controversial than in her teaching that artificial contraception is immoral and thus may never be used. Sex is a big deal in modern society, which brooks no restraints on self-indulgence. But self-restraint is at the heart of the Church’s teaching on sexuality in general and artificial contraception in particular.

Self-restraint enters into Church teaching even where the Church is being indulgent. The Church has recognized that there may be justifiable reasons for married couples to forego having children; but at the same time she has determined that couples need not embrace complete abstinence from sexual relations to do this. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical, Casti Conubii, said couples may come together during infertile periods while avoiding intercourse during fertile periods for a just reason. The Church has not even spelled out what reasons qualify as just, leaving it to couples to determine this (preferably, with wise counsel from a confessor).

But the approved methods of avoiding the fertile periods -- the old “rhythm” method and its more effective successor, Natural Family Planning -- don’t preclude self-control. For one thing, they don’t allow sex on demand, since couples have to abstain during a good part of the month. For another thing, they allow sexual union only during those periods of a woman’s cycle when many women are not all that interested in sex. And some women have irregular cycles, which narrows the window of time in which couples may come together.

NFP often means long periods of time without sex.

Men probably suffer most from NFP-imposed restrictions on sex, since men are always more interested in sex than women. But women suffer, too, when they can’t give their husbands the attention they desire. Ill feelings crop up. Tensions arise. And, doubtless, because of this, some Catholics begin to wonder whether the Church perhaps has gotten it right about contraception.

Of course, user friendliness is not the gauge of truth. Christ did not promise us contentment; He promised us the cross. Still, we are weak, and like babies we long for the milk of consolation rather than the strong wine of the high calling of Christ. This is where the Church comes in, the community of believers. We are to help one another bear our burdens and prod one another on to the fulfillment of our calling.

So, I invite this e-brotherhood (and sisterhood) to a discussion about contraception, NFP, and related topics. Why does the Church’s teaching on contraception make sense? What questions do people have about the teaching and NFP? How might we understand the difficulties associated with following Church teaching in this area so as to help us take on the burdens fidelity imposes? What advice can we give each other to deal with the difficulties we meet with day to day?

© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.