Is the Church Inconsistent on Family Planning?

In 1967 Pope Paul VI released encyclical called Humanae Vitae.  The document upheld the perennial (and traditionally Christian) teaching that contraception was contrary to the moral law.  However, the same document goes on to endorse "natural means" of postponing the conception of children.

Humanity has long known that a woman's menstrual cycle has spaces of fertility and infertility.  Couples have used this fact to space out children by not having sex during the fertile periods.

In the past this was done through the "Rhythm Method".  It relied on averages and personal menstrual history to guess where a woman is in her cycle.  Its usefulness and reliability have well-known limitations.

A more modern method is called Natural Family Planning (NFP).  It also uses abstinence during fertile periods, but relies on various biometric markers to identify signs of a woman’s fertility.  This method is far less dependent on a woman's regularity and – (when practiced rigorously) - achieves levels of certainty equivalent to modern forms of contraception.

And again, this method is approved by the Catholic Church.

Some people see the Church’s approval of NFP as arbitrary and inconsistent.  They will commonly object:

“When non-Catholics want to have sex without having a baby, they use contraception.  When Catholics want to have sex without having a baby they use natural family planning.  It’s the exact same thing.”

Well... is it?


All's Well That Ends Well?

First, what do we mean by "inconsistency"?

An inconsistency would mean the Church teaches some principle but then doesn’t always apply it where it should.  So… suppose the Church taught it is wrong to steal.  But then it allowed you to steal from the Dutch.  That would be inconsistent.

With that in mind, the Church would indeed be inconsistent if it taught:

"It is wrong for married couples to have sex without intending a baby."

Then it really would be inconsistent for being against contraception but for NFP.

But... it doesn't teach that.

In fact, it teaches the exact opposite.  Humanae Vitae said a sexually active married couple can have good reasons to avoid having children.  It said these decisions are part of responsible parenthood:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised […] 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.” – Humanae Vitae, 10

This means the goal of maintaining an active conjugal relationship while postponing children is OK.

So what exactly is the problem?

That's Mean!

Have you ever heard the phrase, “The ends don’t justify the means”?

The phrase says you can have a good goal, but still go about it in the wrong way.  Fully evaluating the morality of an action entails looking at both the “ends” and the “means”.

For instance, imagine you are trying lose a few pounds and achieve a healthy weight.  That would be a very moral “end”.  Now, one person achieves this by cutting junk out of his diet and jogging a mile every day.  Another fella makes himself vomit after every meal.

One of these builds virtue and works within the healthy and natural capacities of the body.  The other works harmfully against the function of the body and often results in compulsive binge eating.

The former is obviously good, the latter is obviously bad.  Only a fool would say bulimia and dieting are the same because they both make you lose weight.  

The same principle applies to family planning.  A married couple who desires to postpone a pregnancy for a sufficient reason is pursuing a moral end.  However, there can be good and bad ways of going about this.



The Why Behind the What:

So what is the principle which makes contraception an immoral means?

Well, the Church recognizes the obvious fact that sex makes babies - and God intended it that way.  In other words, sex and procreation are not tied together by some blind evolutionary accident.  From a Christian point of view it is a design which God envisioned and ordained for our race from the beginning.

Therefore, much in the same way that the Church would tell us not to act against our digestive tract through bulimia, the Church says we cannot introduce an agency into sexual intercourse which thwarts God's design of our bodies.  Doing so would be like a person who makes himself throw up because he wants the taste of food but not the nourishment.  So contraception is out.

However, since that same procreative design naturally includes periods of fertility and infertility, one can utilize the knowledge of those different stages to achieve a similar end.  And that’s all NFP is, essentially.  It is not doing something extra to prevent a baby.  It is using knowledge of a woman’s physiology to avoid doing something which makes a baby.

Whereas contraception uses chemicals and barriers to overcome God’s design of sexuality, NFP utilizes patience and self-mastery to work within that design.  That’s what makes these two “means” morally distinct from one another.

What is Right and What is Easy:

As I said before, the Catholic doctrine on contraception is beyond bizarre in our modern Western civilization.  It is so bizarre that some people are facing legal persecution for trying to act consistently with their ethics.

I remember struggling personally with the teaching myself prior to marriage.  The transition from theory to practice is a gut-wrenching one.  But in the end I found my feet hitting solid ground.

That’s not to say it has always been easy…. but when were we promised that?