In Defense of NFP

I've become loathe to do "this sort" of post lately, partly because I've been through all this so many times in various contexts and am bored of the topic, and partly because it seems rather sex-obsessed...but given how my hedonism post from a few days ago got pretty heavily into the natural law and the question of intelligible goods and, yes, sexual morality specifically, I figured I might as well bookend it with this based on a discussion/debate I had with a friend tonight regarding NFP.

The argument I had to counter was one I think faithful Catholics will hear frequently, and which it is thus important for them to be armed against. However, bastardized forms of our own arguments which get thrown around by ignorant Catholics (and even priests and theologians and hierarchs who obviously like a sound-bite more than thinking things through) often litter the playing-field before such a discussion even begins, and cause significant misunderstanding that can leave the unprepared apologist flustered.

The argument was that NFP is somehow equivalent to contraception or sterilization. That limiting sex to infertile days to deliberately avoid conception is really no different from having contraceptive sex of some sort or sterilization. That both are methods, "technologies" as it were, for having sex without conceiving children and that, thus, to make a distinction is artificial, as the consequences intended by the person are the same either way, just the technique is different. That an allowance for any sort of infertile sex destroys any consistency in the Church's claim of requiring the connection to procreation in sexuality, of preserving mating as its meaning.

Of course, the Church doesn't say that every sex act has to lead to a conception, merely that they must be "open to life." They must be of the reproductive sort of act (meaning, to make it obvious, that semen must be deposited in the vagina.) However, my friend was arguing, to deliberately exclude conception, to time things and formulate ones intent specifically to avoid it...is not truly "open to life." That, again, the intended consequences are the same as contraception, just the means are different.

The stupid "miracle" argument was brought up ("Well, NFP leaves room for a miracle!") and easily dismissed (as God could just as easily preform a miracle with sterilization or contraception, certain forms especially), though I certainly was not the one to bring it up, so it was something of a straw-man. I would also point out, before moving on, the same distinction I did in my post last year between contraception and sterilization; in the mind of the Church, contraception (acts where semen is not even deposited in the vagina, or is removed) renders the sex act in-itself invalid and unchaste, whereas sterilization, though wrong as a form of mutilation before-the-fact (whether sex follows or not), does not necessarily effect the morality of the sex act itself if everything still "winds up in the right place."

Anyway, my argument would be along the lines that the means make all the difference. That contraception is not wrong on account of intending the consequence of conception being avoided (in itself neutral), but on account of the defect in moral object itself. The moral object is the least understood of the "three fonts of morality" in Catholic thought, yet without it...we would be reduced to some sort of ethics of consequentialism.

I think it can be demonstrated quite easily that NFP is categorically different than contraception or sterilization just from an argument about knowledge. Because, of course, NFP is only separated from "random" sex by knowledge. The couple knows which days are fertile and which aren't and use that knowledge. As has often been pointed out, this knowledge can be used to maximize the chances of conception as much as to minimize them. But even more to the point, in itself ignorance does not excuse risking evil.

There is a notion apparently held by those who would see NFP as equivalent to contraception that somehow acting on knowledge has a moral relevance that "random" sex would not. However, this is incorrect. If I have a gun, and I do not know if the chamber is loaded or not, but know there is a good chance it is...it is wrong and equivalent to murder for me to point it at someone and fire. If you know there is such a risk, ignorance does not absolve.

To apply this analogy to NFP: if sex on infertile days (or among the perpetually infertile, or the pregnant, or the menopausal) is wrong in itself, then it would be always wrong. Ignorance would not excuse it. If the "problem" were that all infertile sex were wrong, then "shooting in the dark" would be no better than deliberately seeking out the infertility (or deliberately causing it)!

Under that logic, a condemnation of NFP, of deliberately having sex on days known to be infertile, would be equivalent to a positive obligation to ensure a day was fertile before having sex.

And that, of course, is absurd. It's ridiculous simply because it is unworkable. For much of history, people simply couldn't ensure a day was fertile before having sex. We didn't have that knowledge. Yet, if infertile sex was in-itself wrong, the ignorance would excuse no one.

Well, some might conclude, this in itself proves the whole system is incoherent, and that all sorts of sex are okay! Either every sex act must be deliberately attempting to have children, or they're all okay! (And since the latter is simply impossible, they must all be okay!)

Thankfully, the Church is not so childish, and knows such a black-and-white dichotomy excludes the middle. In fact, what I think my demonstration (about how a condemnation of NFP would be equivalent to a positive obligation to make sure a day was fertile) shows...is that NFP must be categorically different from contraception or sterilization, and thus they could be condemned or approved separately. NFP does not rise or fall with contraception.

We cannot imagine a workable condemnation of NFP that didn't, by it's own internal logic, turn into an impossible requirement that couples make sure every sex act is fertile and deliberately intend to use it for baby-making. On the other hand, a condemnation of contraception turns into no such requirement. The only obligation there is to not alter the act, something that is obviously a very deliberate choice to do; whereas a condemnation of NFP would require positively seeking out fertility.

They are clearly categorically different on this grounds alone. NFP is morally "passive" and to condemn it would be to impose an active requirement on couples to ensure a day was fertile before having sex (as "remaining ignorant" would not excuse). The moral object in sex using NFP is the same moral object (valid natural sex) as in fertile sex, merely the circumstances in which the choice are made are different. Contraception, on the other hand, is an entirely separate choice and active moral object that can be morally forbidden without imposing any sort of additional obligation on anyone.

Of course, circumstances can affect morality. Shooting a gun when no one is standing in front of you is totally different than shooting it when someone is, obviously, on account of the foreseen consequences. To condemn NFP on the grounds of foreseen consequences, however, would be to assume that "sexual pleasure without a conception resulting" is an evil consequence in-itself. However, that would bring us back to the idea that fertility and deliberately conceptive intent was required for valid sex, which is I think the heart of the issue that needs to be debunked (and Catholic apologists don't help here!)

So this raises the question of what is required for valid sex, what is the intelligible good associated with sexual desire/pleasure? If it isn't fertility (impossible to guarantee; and against the constant tradition of allowing the infertile, the pregnant, and the menopausal to continue marital intercourse, as well as the allowance for NFP)...and yet it excludes contraception...what is it?

People eager to see the Church's teaching collapse in order to justify their own unchastity are likely to quickly jump to the conclusion that that it can't be anything. That if the intelligible good actualized in sex (and which it pleasure signifies) is not fertility/conception itself, then the condemnation of contraception makes no sense, as what other good does contraception exclude except conception?? And therefore, dissenters are often anxious to conclude, the intelligible good actualized in sex must be psycho-emotional-unity/intimacy/expression-of-love/bonding/relationship-building-ex-stasis/whatever other sentimentalist pet excuse or thought-terminating-cliche they use to justify their own lusts (if they even bother, at this point, to admit that some intelligible good is necessary at all!)

However, besides the problems with circularity (or at least ends-justifying-means) that my post on hedonism pointed out about such identifications, and besides the absolutely intellectually dishonest way this seems to relegate sex's connection to reproduction to just being sort of a side effect that can happen sometimes...this also is an example of sloppy thinking excluding the middle.

The truth is, yes, it is impossible to reasonably claim that fertility/conception is the intelligible good for sexual pleasure. For one, the Church has always allowed sex during pregnancy, for the infertile and menopausal, and (once knowledge of the fertility cycle was discovered) NFP. But also, as was emphasized at the beginning of this post, if actual reproduction were the intelligible good in sex, there would be a positive obligation to make sure each and every sex act was actually reproductive. That's clearly not the case, and yet I think people, even well-meaning faithful Catholics, get confused by all the verbiage about "life" and "procreation" and all that. So people assume that either the intelligible good is actual reproduction, or else purely recreational/relational.

In reality, though, there can be an intelligible good intrinsically related to procreation which is not actual reproduction. And, in fact, this is just what the Church proposes as the end of sexuality: procreative union. As discussed in that hedonism post, it would be a mistake to think the Church proposes some sort of psycho-emotional "unity" as an independent end of sex separable from the procreative. No, the union proposed is the very concrete biophysical union of the two halves of the reproductive system coming together in their common function. This union is reproductive (obviously, it is the union of the two halves of the reproductive system) but that doesn't mean it need always result in an actual conception. This union is a real intelligible good whether it bears full fruit or not.

In fact, conception itself could not be the intelligible good in sex exactly because it takes place potentially hours after the sex act. A pleasure or enjoyment will correspond temporally with the good it signifies, so whatever good is actualized in sex cannot be something that occurs later, it must occur during the very event. And given that this pleasure is localized in the genitals and coincides (in the male) with ejaculation, it is pretty clearly the deposit of semen which is the moment of the occurrence of the intelligible good, not what may later be accomplished by it in the female body (the woman's pleasure, it may be assumed, corresponds to something closely related but less localized, like "receptivity," and thus may occur before or after the actual deposit).

The nature of sexual union is in the "delivery," and in that it finds its natural fulfillment. The delivery is from one "half" of the reproductive system to the other, and involves delivering the "ingredients" of reproduction, but sex itself is not naturally "responsible" for anything beyond that; the conception and gestation will take place (non-voluntarily) inside the woman later.

Now, it was asked in my conversation, what good is intelligible in the deposit of semen in a vagina if there is no conception? If, say, there is no ovum (or even no uterus) waiting to use it? Why is that any more intelligible a good than ejaculation outside the vagina or in some other orifice?? Well, frankly, I think to a natural-thinking person it would be obvious why they are not equivalent, why one act has an organic coherence that the others don't. The delivery of semen to the vagina is simply the natural fulfillment of sex. But for those whom modern nihilism has confused, I can offer some analogies as to what constitutes true intelligible unions.

I think, for example, of a cord for an appliance plugged into a socket. The appliance is broken, but if it is plugged in, there is still a real union between the appliance and the electrical grid inasmuch as electricity still flows through (even if, because of mechanical failure, it does not actualize the work the machine was made for). The circuit is still completed. The potential is there even if, because of accidental circumstances, it is not actualized. On the other hand, taping two plugs together is mere juxtaposition, not a real union (at least, not an electrical union) because no electricity is exchanged.

For a union to be achieved, two things must be more than juxtaposed. Rather, they must work together for a common function. Ejaculation into a mouth or anus is mere juxtaposition, or if there is a common striving or cooperation, it is merely towards masturbatory stimulation (and as discussed in the hedonism post, it is circular to claim that "unity" in obtaining pleasure can be the good that pleasure signifies).

However, in valid sex, there is a real cooperation between the two halves of the reproductive system in taking the initial step of the process, at least. Which step we might call something like "acquiring the ingredients." The oven might be broken, the potential may never be realized, but there is a real intelligible cooking union in two people mixing the ingredients for a cake together, even if it never gets baked, even if they know it will never get baked (perhaps they're practicing to stay in top form for when they do have to actually bake a cake!)

Consider: there is a big difference between two people sitting at a table working independently on separate puzzles, or even "working together" by confusedly trying to jam pieces together from two different puzzles, and two people actually cooperating on the assembly of the same puzzle. The first is not cooperation in a common task at all, it is mere juxtaposition or "parallel play." The second is a form of cooperation in something, I suppose, maybe they consider shoving mismatched puzzle-pieces together some sort of game...but it certainly can't be said to be cooperation or union in the assembly of a single puzzle. The third, however, clearly is cooperation in assembling a puzzle, and this clearly remains true even if pieces are missing, even if they know pieces are missing, or even if they deliberately intend merely to start the puzzle together but never finish it. Cooperation in starting an intelligible task, in taking the first step...is true cooperation in an intelligible good whether or not the other steps are ever reached or can be reached or even intended to be reached.

Likewise, in valid natural sex, there is a real reproductive union even if, once the semen is in its natural receptacle, other circumstances (even deliberately sought out circumstances) prevent an actual conception from taking place. Because conception was never the intelligible good in the sex itself (conception, if it does take place, could happen hours later). The intelligible good was the reproductive union of taking the first step of depositing semen in the vagina. The couple has "completed" each other physically, has given the other the ingredient or receptacle they could not obtain from their own bodies (or bodies of like sex). Reproduction may not result, but sex has fulfilled its role in the process, at least.

The two halves of the reproductive system have really cooperated in their common function, in the procreative process, by exchanging ingredients. Even if that process remains incomplete beyond that first step, there is still a real intelligible procreative union in taking that first step and, indeed, the one corresponding to sexual pleasure (which only ever coincides with "getting the ball rolling" given that the next steps happen involuntarily inside the woman much later).

They have "exchanged the potentialities of parenthood" by taking that first step, even if in given circumstances (or perpetually) those potentialities are zero or close to zero. Still, there is a huge difference between a gift of ingredients (to be totally graphic: cake batter) to a neighbor you know will never bake it, and simply dumping it on the driveway or throwing it at the side of her house. The former is an intelligible gift and, since all the matter is there, could even be called, implicitly, the gift of a cake, even if never fully actualized/baked once given. The latter, on the other hand, is just making a mess.

So, in summary: to condemn NFP simply because it involves sexual pleasure obtained deliberately without actual reproduction would be equivalent to imposing an (impossible) positive obligation on couples to ensure a sex act resulted in conception every time. Because if infertile sex is bad, it would be always bad, the mere ignorance of "random" sex would not excuse. Condemning contraception, however, would not necessarily be equivalent to imposing such a positive obligation, so it is clearly categorically different than NFP. In reality, infertile sex cannot be considered an evil in itself, but that doesn't mean that sex acts which don't deposit semen in the vagina are okay as, in the categories of the Church, such acts are not merely infertile, but impotent. Much confusion about all this likely results from thinking the procreative end of sex can only mean fully actualized reproduction or a conception, when really the intelligible good in sex itself is merely the reproductive union of taking the first step of "acquiring the ingredients" together or "exchanging the potentials." Whether that goes on (or even can go on) to bear full fruit within the woman or not, cooperating in that initial function of the reproductive system remains a true intelligible procreative union.

Now, all of this has largely been directed against those who would dissent on Church teaching. However, before concluding, it would be worth also mentioning those Catholics who constantly obsess over "NFP being used with a contraceptive mentality." In reality, I'm not even sure what this would mean.

Certainly a married couple who can do so is obligated to have, I'd think, at least one child. To use NFP to avoid any children for ones whole marriage would be to withhold reproductive capacity from the other, the exchange of which is the very nature of the marriage contract. Exchanging potentialities on any given day when the potentials are zero or near zero isn't wrong, there is still a real reproductive union there. But perpetually doing it on those days and never even once exchanging on a day when things were at "full potential" would constitute a withholding unless there was a grave reason that such an exchange would be more harmful than good. For a chef to assemble the ingredients of a cake without actually baking it may be perfectly fine in itself. But for him to spend his whole career and never even bake one cake even when it was possible...well, he'd hardly deserve the title of chef.

However, I will point out: this applies equally to total abstinence, which would likewise be wrong for a married couple unless they had a very good reason. We likewise probably wouldn't call someone a chef who never baked a cake even if he also never even assembled the ingredients. The problem here isn't, then, NFP being used "contraceptively" (the sex they do have, on the infertile days, may still be totally chaste). Rather, it's a question of the general obligation of married couples to have children, not a question of that needing to be actualized in every sex act (as long as the intelligible reproductive union is maintained).

Beyond this, talk of NFP (or even sterilization) being used with, or leading to, a "contraceptive mindset" only makes sense in a world where people's understanding of sex has already been reduced to something essentially masturbatory. I have no doubt that some couples using NFP or having sex during pregnancy or after menopause (and most people sterilizing themselves, either permanently or temporarily)...have no particular notion or understanding of the good of reproductive union in "acquiring the ingredients" as separate from actual reproduction, and are pursuing sex with an intent formulated to exclude everything but the recreational or possibly relational apparent goods (and, without the foundation of an intelligible good, they are only ever merely apparent). And yet, if they don't even consider it, can they really exclude it in intent when they aren't actually excluding it in practice?

So, in closing, I would remind people of something from a Catholic Encyclopedia article which I always find useful: "it must be noted that there is no obligation to formerly and explicitly have before one's mind a motive which will immediately relate our actions to God. It is enough that such an intention should be implied in the apprehension of the thing as lawful with a consequent virtual submission to Almighty God," and also to close with something more from that section of Grisez I quoted in the hedonism post: "This is not the same as the situation in which one spontaneously does reasonable things without having reasoned about them. Nor is it the same as cases in which one acts for an intelligible good and gains emotional satisfaction in its concrete, sensibly pleasant aspects." In reality, we're naturally drawn to pleasurable things, and that's totally fine as long as we do not intentionally engage in enjoying them severed from their connatural intelligible good which the subjective enjoyment merely signifies.