In the various sources of NFP, there are a plurality of terms used to denote the reason where NFP may be licit. E. Christian Brugger, who teaches at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado, says that “The Latin term ‘iustae causae’ is sometimes translated ‘well grounded reasons,’ sometimes ‘serious motives’, and sometimes ‘grave reasons.’ But the term is simply the plural of ‘iusta causa,’ which literally translates ‘just cause.’”[1]
On October 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII taught:
Then, there is the serious question today as to whether and how far the obligation of ready disposition to serve motherhood can be reconciled with the ever more widely diffused recourse to the periods of natural sterility (the so-called agenetic periods of the woman) which seems to be a clear expression of the will contrary to that disposition.
It is rightly expected that you be well informed from the medical point of view about this theory and of the progress that is likely to be made in it. It is also expected that your advice and aid be not based on popular publications but founded on scientific objectivity and the authoritative judgment of specialists in medicine and biology. It is your office, not that of the priest, to instruct married people either when they come for private consultations or through serious publications on the biological and technical aspects of the theory, without, however, allowing yourselves to be let in for propaganda that is neither right nor decent. In this field, too, your apostolate demands of you as women and Christians that you know and defend the norms of morality to which the application of this theory is subordinated. Here it is the Church that is the competent judge.
There are two hypotheses to be considered. If the carrying out of this theory means nothing more than that the couple can make use of their matrimonial rights on the days of natural sterility too, there is nothing against it, for by so doing they neither hinder nor injure in any way the consummation of the natural act and its further natural consequences. It is in this respect that the application of the theory of which we have spoken differs from the abuse already mentioned which is a perversion of the act itself. If, however, it is a further question – that is, of permitting the conjugal act on those days exclusively – then the conduct of the married couple must be examined more closely.
Here two other hypotheses present themselves to us. If at the time of marriage at least one of the couple intended to restrict the marriage right, not merely its use, to the sterile periods, in such a way that at other times the second party would not even have the right to demand the act, this would imply an essential defect in the consent to marriage, which would carry with it invalidity of the marriage itself, because the right deriving from the contract of marriage is a permanent, uninterrupted and not intermittent right of each of the parties, one to the other.
On the other hand, if the act be limited to the sterile periods insofar as the mere use and not the right is concerned, there is no question about the validity. of the marriage. Nevertheless, the moral licitness of such conduct on the part of the couple would have to be approved or denied according as to whether or not the intention of observing those periods constantly was based on sufficient and secure moral grounds. The mere fact that the couple do not offend the nature of the act and are prepared to accept and bring up the child which in spite of their precautions came into the world would not be sufficient in itself to guarantee the rectitude of intention and the unobjectionable morality of the motives themselves.
The reason for this is that marriage obliges to a state of life which, while conferring certain rights also imposes the fulfillment of a positive work in regard to the married state itself. In such a case, one can apply the general principle that a positive fulfillment may be omitted when serious reasons, independent from the good will of those obliged by it, show that this action is not opportune, or prove that a similar demand cannot reasonably be made of human nature.
The marriage contract which confers upon husband and wife the right to satisfy the inclinations of nature, sets them up in a certain state of life, the married state. But upon couples who perform the act peculiar to their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of helping the conservation of the human race. The characteristic activity which gives their state its value is the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the state, the Church itself depend for their existence in the order established by God on fruitful marriage. Therefore, to embrace the married state, continuously to make use of the faculty proper to it and lawful in it alone, and, on the other hand, to withdraw always and deliberately with no serious reason from its primary obligation, would be a sin against the very meaning of conjugal life.
There are serious motives, such as those often mentioned in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic, and social “indications,” that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act. From this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful only under a moral aspect. Under the conditions mentioned it really is so. But if, according to a rational and just judgment, there are no similar grave reasons of a personal nature or deriving from external circumstances, then the determination to avoid habitually the fecundity of the union while at the same time to continue fully satisfying their sensuality, can be derived only from a false appreciation of life and from reasons having nothing to do with proper ethical laws.[2]
A month later, on November 26, after promoting the goodness of raising large families, he writes:
On the other hand, the Church can consider with sympathy and comprehension the real difficulty of married life in our day. Therefore, in Our last allocution on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy and—at the same time, the limits, very broad indeed—of a regulation of offspring, which, contrary to so-called “birth-control,” is compatible with the law of God. One may even hope (but in these matters, the Church naturally defers judgements to medical science) that the latter will succeed in giving to this licit method a sufficiently secure foundation, and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope.[3]
On September 12, 1958, he said:
The taking advantage of natural temporary sterility, in the Ogino-Knaus method, does not violate the natural order…since the conjugal relations correspond to the will of the Creator. When this method is utilized for proportionately serious motives (and eugenic indications can have a grave character), it is morally justified. Already We spoke of this in Our Allocution of October 29, 1951, not to put forward the biological or medical viewpoint, but to put an end to the anxieties of conscience of many Christians, who utilized it in their conjugal life. Furthermore, in his Encyclical on December 31, 1930, (“Casti Connubii”), Pius XI had already formulated the principle: “Neither are those spouses to be said to act against the natural order, who use their right correctly according to natural reason, even though a new life cannot spring forth because of natural causes either of time or whatever defect.”
We have already stated precisely in Our Allocution of 1951 that spouses who make use of conjugal rights, have the positive obligation, by virtue of the natural law proper to their state, not to exclude procreation. The Creator indeed has willed the propagation of the human race precisely through the natural exercise of the sexual function. But to this positive law, We applied the principle valid to all others: they do not oblige to the extent that their fulfillment involves notable inconveniences, which are not inseparable from the law itself, nor inherent in its accomplishment, but come from elsewhere, and which the legislator did not intend to impose on men, when he promulgated the law.
Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae in 1968.[4] Some pertinent quotes to the question of NFP are listed:
“With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.”
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
“From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.”
“The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”
“[I]t is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”
“On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”
“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”
“The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.”
“The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.”
In Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II says that
by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.[5]
In his address to teacher of natural family planning, JPII said,
using the natural methods requires and strengthens the harmony of the married couple, it helps and confirms the rediscovery of the marvellous gift of parenthood, it involves respect for nature and demands the responsibility of the individuals. According to many authoritative opinions, they also foster more completely that human ecology which is the harmony between the demands of nature and personal behaviour.
At the global level this choice supports the process of freedom and emancipation of women and peoples from unjust family planning programmes, which bring in their sad wake the various forms of contraception, abortion and sterilization.
But more immediately, your work each day is valuable and sought after in parish communities and in diocesan centres for the pastoral care of the family and life. In this regard, I wrote in the Encyclical “Evangelium vitae” that “an honest appraisal of their effectiveness should dispel certain prejudices which are still widely held, and should convince married couples, as well as health-care and social workers, of the importance of proper training in this area. The Church is grateful to those who, with personal sacrifice and often unacknowledged dedication, devote themselves to the study and spread of these methods, as well as to the promotion of education in the moral values which they presuppose” (n. 97).
The moment has come for every parish and every structure of consultation and assistance to the family and to the defence of life to have personnel available who can teach married couples how to use the natural methods. For this reason I particularly recommend that Bishops, parish priests and those responsible for pastoral care welcome and promote this valuable service.[6]
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, NFP is directly referenced: “A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.”[7] And again,
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.[8]
[1] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/just-cause-and-natural-family-planning-9730
[2] http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/nfp/nfp_01naturalfamilyplanning56.html
[3] https://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol32/iss1/27/
[7] CCC 2368.
[8] CCC 2370.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.