On Discerning Babies

Okay, friends, welcome to the last of a three-post series in which I respond to Sarah’s musings about NFP.  Two of the categories that she listed as “blackguarding each other” in the NFP subculture struck me.  (Also, the fact that she used “blackguarding” struck me.)  She mentioned “Dire conspiracy theorists sure most people's reasons for postponing pregnancy aren't good enough,” as well as “Harried parents paranoid that they should be pregnant again or that they discerned poorly.”  Although she did not spell out the link between these two groups, I think it should be fairly obvious.  

In this realm of Catholic dialogue there are two interwoven trends that I want to separate out.  First there is the contention that “NFP is just Catholic contraception” or “some/most couples practice NFP with a contraceptive mentality.”  The second, interrelated trend is the “your reasons for postponing a pregnancy aren’t good enough,” which is a veiled way of saying, “Unless having a baby will kill you (and maybe even not then) there really isn’t a good reason for not being pregnant yesterday.”  

This first idea -- that NFP is Church sanctioned contraception, or that contracepting and practicing NFP are essentially the same thing but one is okay because it’s harder and riskier (not actually true on the 2nd point) -- is found all over the place.  Those not on board with NFP spout it, trying to discredit NFP.  Those trying to be on board with NFP ask it, trying to figure out NFP.  And those who claim that “some couples practice NFP with a contraceptive mentality” espouse it implicitly, while trying to avoid it.  

The trouble with this mindset is that it looks at the consequences without looking at the action.  “The outcome is the same, therefore the thing is the same!”  Catholic moral thought, however, demands an examination of both the action and the consequences.  The natural and intended consequence of both contraception and NFP* is a lack of babies.  But Catholic moral thought doesn’t start its evaluation with the natural and intended consequences of the action.  It starts with the action itself.

The key is that the Church understands contraceptive relations to be a fundamentally different action than marital relations.  So much so that one of my professors told us there is debate as whether a couple who has only had contraceptive relations has consummated their marriage.  (I want to read this debate.)  That’s pretty intense.  

It’s so intense that JPII took a good long while laying the groundwork for it in his Theology of the Body. The long and short of it is that each time a husband and wife come together, the body communicates something.  There is a TON of meaning there and this meaning isn’t accidental to the action -- the action by its nature communicates this meaning whether the person means it all or not.  The body communicates the message, “I give myself to you fully” -- and this fullness includes fertility.  It also communicates, “I accept you fully” -- and again, this fullness includes fertility.  And so, JPII says, contraception is telling a lie with your body.

NFP on the other hand is the choice to refrain from this communication when the couple cannot make it truly.  Where contraception says, “I want to give and receive pleasure without the fullness of love,” NFP says, “I am willing to sacrifice because I want the trueness of you.”

Because of this difference, NFP and the contraceptive mindset are mutually exclusive.  If my explanation was not good enough (it took me a whole grad course), read here and here.  (Full disclosure: that second link takes you to an article of my Bioethics prof from Steubenville.) 

As I write, I hear objections to my own arguments (which sometimes makes writing rather slow, because I try to answer all those voices at once).  And the one I am hearing strongest now leads me into part two.  “But, Beth, it is possible to practice NFP for the wrong reasons.”  

Well, yes, but:

1) The wrong reasons might come from selfishness or fear or other issues, but not the contraceptive mentality.  Mutually exclusive.  Read here and here if you are still unclear on this.  This is important because we need to address people (including ourselves) where they really are, rather than fighting battles that don’t exist.  

2) I have seen this line of thought used to condemn other couples or to fuel unhealthy scrupulosity of ones own intentions.  This approach has the underlying assumption that there’s really no reason good enough to postpone pregnancy and thus undermines the teaching of the Church, who encourages the use of NFP.  To hear how the Church sounds when speaking about something that might maybe possibly in some extreme exigent circumstances be sometimes allowed, look at her teaching on the death penalty.  That is not how she speaks about NFP (look at the 2nd paragraph under “Recourse to Infertile Periods”).

3) Couples discerning if they should postpone pregnancy need a real discussion on factors and circumstances that go into this decision, preferably with someone wiser than themselves -- not casual or implicit condemnations of everyone who makes this choice.  Oftentimes these general or personal condemnations are made without deep thought, real knowledge of the situations, or intentional charity.  We need to be very careful how we say things, because our words can have a real impact on people’s lives.  

4) Sometimes the way to do things for the right reason is to start doing them for the wrong reason.  It is much better to go to Mass because your parents expect it or to impress a person of the opposite sex or so that you can make friends than to stay away entirely.  Being there opens your heart.  The same thing with NFP.  The choice for love and sacrifice can change hearts.  

*I am going to use “NFP” here as a shorthand for “NFP for the purpose of postponing pregnancy, possibly indefinitely.”  I know that NFP does not do only that, which is another difference between NFP and contraception, but this line of thought deals with NFP as used to postpone pregnancy.