“Catholic” objections to NFP that don’t make sense

Marie just pointed out to me that one year ago today, this Facebook post inspired her to suggest that we blog. I can’t believe it has been that long! Since the issue is still relevant, and since we now have a blog to post it on, here’s the “rant” that started it all …

[Fair warning: looong rant ahead]

Ahh, the joys of NFP week.

99% of the U.S. population probably has no idea it’s even a thing. Yet a tiny fraction of the Catholic population thinks it’s useful to rehash arguments against what has up until recently been the only advocacy within the Church — and pretty much within the world — for women and men to understand the woman’s menstrual cycle and how it affects not only their procreative potential but also various aspects of the woman’s life and well-being, including her relationship with her spouse.

Caveats before I go on:

1. I wholeheartedly believe siblings are the best gift parents can give their children.
2. I wholeheartedly believe that Christian spouses should strive to make decisions about their family (size and otherwise) based on well-formed consciences and ongoing conversion to Christ, seeking pastoral guidance when appropriate. (Duh! Although the availability of solid pastoral guidance is wanting … but that’s another issue.)
3. I wholeheartedly agree that the “contraceptive” and now “consumerist” culture exert an unfortunate and deplorable amount of influence on childbearing and familial life.
4. I wholeheartedly believe “NFP” (“natural family planning”) is an awful term and “fertility awareness” would be oh-so-much better, but the secular world has already grabbed that term (see “FAM”) to differentiate itself from the “Catholic” versions, so it would be kind of awkward to rename it now…
5. Finally, I believe in God. Which means that I believe that God is in control, period. And all that entails …

The crux of what I don’t understand, I guess, is why it seems that sex seems to be the god of the conversation when it comes to all things NFP. I get the sense that there’s a belief out there that married couples are simply entitled to as much sex as they can have, and that it’s a shame — a crying shame, and sometimes even *gasp* a sin — to say no to that urge (even if it’s only felt by one spouse).

These kind of arguments, coupled with the argument that NFP — and by extension, I assume, fertility awareness in general — should play only a minimal role in most marriages make their proponents sound, well, kind of sex-obsessed. I’m just saying. It sounds to me like they are arguing that regular and frequent genital sexual union a la urge is a sacred cow that must not be touched.

I simply do not see how — outside of intentionally “using NFP” to have as much sex as possible and simultaneously to avoid having children at all — using NFP to avoid pregnancy for a time can be equated to not fulfilling the procreative end of marriage. I mean, what if the couple already has a child … or two or three or four or five or six? Those don’t count? And how much sex is “enough”? In order to prove that you’re fulfilling your procreative end, do you have to “do it” once a month? A week? A day? Does anyone else see why this perspective just might be a tad problematic?

Sure, I get the “generosity” thing mentioned in Humanae Vitae. But what about the “prudent” part? And in my reading, those two are applied to the couple’s decisions (What? You mean the Church actually acknowledges that spouses have a decision to make in the matter? It sure seems so …) to bring new life into the world. Not to the decision about when to have sex. I mean, sure, generosity is a virtue to be applied to all aspects of life. But so is prudence.

So … do tell: How is it prudent (or truly generous, for that matter) to argue against practical knowledge of NFP (which is essentially, knowledge of the way God made women and men) while simultaneously arguing for sex-whenever-at-least-one-spouse-feels-like-it? This seems to me the least prudent approach a couple could take. And, I propose, it seems much closer in motivation (e.g., more sex, sex whenever the urge hits) to that perceived of contracepting couples than it does to that of couples who use NFP. Because, well, abstinence. And that (i.e., that correlation between providentialists and couples who contracept) kind of weirds me out.

Not only does it weird me out, it seems intentionally ignorant of and adverse toward the kind of information about oneself and one’s spouse that I believe every man and woman has the right to know and should know (particularly now that it is knowable), especially in marriage. It’s almost like these people would rather we close our eyes to the awesome reality of who God created us to be in favor of simply following our sexual instincts.

What about the spouse that might not share the instinct at a given moment? Wait for it … wait for it … they pull out a host of “Church teachings” that indicate that spouse, too, is theologically bound to follow the instincts of the other. Which just seems so inhuman to me — nevermind inconsiderate.

The fact is, simply knowing and understanding God’s great gift of fertility on a biological level can help to increase awe and respect for His design, and help spouses know and love one another more fully. Because the information is about the person. And the relationship is about the person. And that is enough, in my book, to strongly recommend every couple — yes, every couple — at least have a cursory knowledge of NFP.

My grandparents have taught NFP for more than 30 years and to this day they encourage young couples to learn it during engagement for the simple practical reason that it is easier to learn before marriage (assuming couples are not yet sleeping together, which I know is rare today) than in the face of a “serious” or “life-threatening” reason to avoid a pregnancy during marriage.

But more importantly, they continue to promote NFP today because THEY HAVE SEEN THE FRUITS OF THE PRACTICE OF NFP FOR THEIR 55-YEAR-OLD MARRIAGE. Far from painting the practice of NFP as some convenient, delightful little jaunt through Catholic marriage, my grandfather will be the first to tell you that early on it’s tough — and for years the couple might be more likely to ask “WHY are we doing this again?” than to exclaim joyfully “Oh, we looooove NFP.” But he’s very quick to follow up with how rewarding the practice of NFP is in the long run. Why? Because it fosters ongoing conversion of heart — and conversion toward the other — THIS is the “way of life” NFP promoters are talking about, not some attempt to perfectly plan and regulate each and every birth for maximum effect on the family budget and vacation plans (while still having awesome sex, of course).

My grandparents’ relationship is enviable. They are on the other side of raising six kids of their own and are enjoying watching their 26 (+? I’ve lost count) grandchildren and three great-grandchildren grow. And they are some of the most generous, most trusting, most open-to-God’s-will people I know. So yeah, when I hear criticisms of life-of-the-marriage NFP users, I get a little riled up. And I really start to wonder whether they know what they’re talking about.

There are a few other issues that I feel this side ignores:

1. The fact that some families are called to have many children and some families aren’t. Oh, they’ll say they’re aware of the sad situation of couples who are infertile or couples who face such severe obstacles that they really have to limit their family size. But what about felt interior inclinations that are so strong that they become one of those justly and seriously considered reasons that couples discern to mean that God isn’t calling them to breed abundantly?

   I feel like it’s important to point out that there are some people who absolutely love and/or feel like it’s God’s will for them to be popping out babies every other year and/or feel the warm fuzzies when holding newborns and/or feel complete when fulfilling parental duties and teaching their many children. And then there are some people who don’t feel these things at all. God gives different gifts to different people. Each person has to work with what he or she has been given, and each couple has to wrestle with this reality. YES, we are all called to stretch and grow, and YES, sometimes it is uncomfortable. But I point out these differences because it’s so critically important to understand that everyone cannot simply be lumped into the same category — especially when it comes to such a weighty topic as the procreation and education of the next generation.

2. The fact that not every person’s libido is the same. What is the pastoral advice for situations where one or both spouses just don’t feel “the urge” that often? Just do it anyway? How often is reasonable? Should the less-endowed go out of their way to get hormone supplements or treatments to increase their libido? Why? Assuming it’s not related to a disease, shouldn’t their spouse accept them for who they are? We almost always talk about all things sex related as if everybody-wants-it-and-just-has-to-have-it-as-much-as-possible. Well, that’s not true for everyone. Yet, if you’re Catholic and married, it sometimes seems like there’s virtually no reason why, if at least one party is game, it shouldn’t happen. Once again, sex=sacred cow, and we sweep the person under the rug.

Is anyone else questioning whether a broader, more holistic approach to marital intimacy might actually benefit everyone? I know I am. I long to see an approach that both upholds the integrity and value of genital marital union while also upholding the dignity of both spouses, in all their unique personal complexity. The closest I’ve seen to such an approach is (go figure) in Church documents on the subjects.

Unfortunately, there seems to be quite the systemic breakdown when it comes to translating the teachings into widely accessible, practical advice. This desperately needs to change.

And we’ve got to stop making genital sexual union a sacred cow and start talking more broadly about what healthy intimacy looks like in marriage. We can’t fulfill God’s will for our marriage by being perpetually open to the urge and leaving the rest up to him. Why? Because we’re persons, not animals. We’re persons whose need for intimacy and love and care goes oh-so-much-further than what happens in the bedroom. We’re also persons whose worth is not first (and not really ever) in how many children we have, but in our dignity as created in the image and likeness of God. And in his infinite creativity, he has made each of us spectacularly different, which means that our relationships and our marriages and the ways we are called to give are going to be unique and different from those of other individuals and other couples around us. The task set before us is to follow God’s will — and that will is for each of us as unique and unrepeatable as each of us is.

So please, please, pleeeease stop reducing the person and the marital relationship to sex. Please. It’s not good for anybody.

In conclusion, promotion of NFP as a way of life, rightly understood, brings to the table critical information that boosts, in particular, respect for the person as person and respect for the intricate dance of the couple using their intellect and free will to cooperate with God’s plan in their lives. An anti-NFP mindset of the type I see promoted on the Internet and among “providentialists” seems to uphold impulse over intellect, which doesn’t seem very respectful toward the Providence that saw fit to give us an intellect in the first place.