Natural Law and Family Planning

NFP part 1

                                                             

When we hear or look at the phrase "Natural Family Planning" what comes to mind first? With the first word of the phrase being "natural," some people may, unfortunately, think that the only thing NFP has going for it is that it is not artificial. Sometimes this may even feed into the common misconception that the Church's main disagreement with contraception is that it is artificial. Other obstacles to understanding NFP come from mainstream culture's inherently contraceptive mindset.

To explain the above misconception, I think it is important to point out that "Natural" is not the main event of the phrase, "Natural Family Planning." In fact, "natural" is not an event at all-- it's a descriptor. Remember when learning grammar, being told to find the verb of the sentence to figure out what's going on with the subject? Well, in Natural Family Planning, both grammatically and ideologically, the subject here is a family and the action is planning. NFP is most importantly about planning a family. Planning is intended to mean anticipation of something actually happening eventually, not an act of indefinite postponement.  Included in the planning are the important aspects of knowing how to do the planning and commitment to carrying out the plans. "Natural" is the adjective describing the means of carrying out the plans.

Being natural is important to the context of the family planning, but not in the way many may think. The "N" in NFP does not merely mean "not-artificial." This important descriptor not only signifies a lack of man-made intervention, but it conveys a context of God-established law.  Natural law dictates that procreation results from sexuality. For this reason, the main purpose and intent of Natural Family Planning is to plan a family, and to do so in cooperation (not contradiction) with Natural Law. This is what it means to be "open to life."[1] Being open to life does not mean that a woman ought to become pregnant as often as possible. It does mean that a couple ought not to take actions that directly interfere with the natural result of sexuality.

To most people, NFP (aided by the mistaken idea that it is meant solely to serve as Catholic contraception) is only a mindset that comes into play during the "let's not have a(nother) child yet" stage. However, the principle of abiding by natural law continues to apply once conception is being actively sought. The statement that procreation results from sexuality as a principle of natural law deserves more elaboration on this. As we know, artificial contraception is against natural law, not only because it is artificial, but because it intentionally severs sexuality from its natural (law) result. Just as sexuality ought not to be severed from its natural result, so too must sexuality's result not be severed from its natural source. Thus, the principles employed in Natural Family Planning, as an ideology based upon natural law, are applied to both ends of the family planning spectrum. When these concepts are ignored, there is a two-fold result. The result is a culture that is both contraceptive in seeing children as a burden to be avoided but also, paradoxically, one that has a view of human life so consumerized that children are also seen as things to be procured according to desire.[2]

---

[1] For further explanation on being open to life, there is really good post explaining openness to life at Conversion Diary, by Jennifer Fulwiler

[2] Two previous topics of mine: Contraceptive Culture and The Paradox Surrounding Conception

Thoughts continued in NFP part 2, Obstacles to Understanding NFP 

The Paradox Surrounding Conception

“This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat 1/3/11 (1)
.

This quotation is a pretty concise observation of what is so very disturbing about the attitude of mainstream culture toward the conception of human life. In mainstream society we observe not only a rejection of the sanctity of human life, but also a rejection of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage (which in turn causes a distortion of sexuality’s proper context as well as a degradation of the value of the family) and most of all, a rejection of God.
 .

Rejecting God inherently becomes a rejection of at least some aspect of human dignity. Fulton Sheen has said, “…a person is a person only when seen in an image of God” (2). If God does not exist, then man cannot possess His image. The connection between sexuality and the sanctity of life exists because of that image of God, the imago Dei, which we all not only possess but are also called to uphold in our own lives (3). The revelation of the imago Dei, as Anderson and Granados explain in Called to Love, begins in the family (4). The basis of the family is the covenant of marriage, which itself is the vocation to having a family. What has been happening in recent decades though, has been the separation of sexuality from marriage, and the rejection of God from human love.
 .

Mainstream culture has become a culture of using our bodies to suit personal desire, especially where sexuality and conception are concerned. The way conception is viewed in society is often very distorted by personal desire, and that desire is usually toward one of two extremes. The more obvious extreme is the view of the conception of children as a burden to be avoided, in favor of engaging in non-marital and contracepted sex (A previous topic of mine). At the other extreme, the mindset seems quite the opposite. Once a couple has decided that they want to conceive children, they may develop a sense of entitlement that they believe allows them to pursue conception as an instrinsic right and by any means necessary (or desired). The general attitude seems to view the conception (or contraception) of children as some sort commodity, which can merely be either acquired or rejected upon desire. It is insisted that children are something that can be avoided at will through an abuse of sexuality, and also insisted that children may also be produced at will by an imitation of sexual function. Thus, medical science has developed a myriad of technologies that offer us both the ability to falsify the correct reproductive aspects of our bodies, and to imitate the biological function of sexuality.
.

I have been casually following a series of articles on NPR entitled “Making Babies: 21^st Century Families” (Found here). The articles are about various situations surrounding the use of IVF. These articles show a human sexuality that is becoming increasingly consumerized, an attitude partly permitted by advances in technology. The scenarios show the mindset that conception is primarily something for parents to procure for themselves. These behaviors are not symbolic of how God calls us to love, but are a sign of the misunderstanding of His call, which results in a distortion of the means of following it. Marriage is the vocation to family, and it is right that married couples should wish to become parents. The problem arises when the means by which they try to fulfill that vocation becomes an inappropriate one. IVF is immoral is not just because it is something artificial, but because of what it is specifically an artificial simulation of. It is an artificial simulation of the very means by which a husband and wife are called within their love to be co-creators with God of the human person (which bears the imago Dei).
.

The "cafeteria style" set of sexual ethics that has developed is based upon want, desire, gratification, selfishness, use, and most of all, subjectivity. People are quick to take from sexuality whichever of its single aspects that suits their purposes at the moment, but are strikingly hesitant to recognize sexuality as the whole of all its facets and to accept it in its proper context: as a physical expression of the vows of matrimony, being together “free, total, faithful and fruitful” (5).

Notes:

(1) A good quotation printed in one of the parish bulletins for "Respect Life Month." I tried, but can’t find the actual article.

(2) Fulton Sheen. Three to Get Married. (New York: Scepter Publishers, 1996), 7

(3) Cf. The explanation of the imago Dei: the imago Dei includes not only the image of God, but also the likeness. The “likeness” is the dynamic part of the imago Dei, which man is called to continuously perfect: “man is born as God’s image, but he has to complete the imago Dei through his free yes to God.”

Carl Anderson and Jose Granados. Called to Love: Approaching John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. (New York: Doubleday, 2009), 85.

(4) ibid., 86.

(5) Christopher West. Theology of the Body for Beginners. (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2009), 89.

No, they're not "special"

Contrary to greeting card sentiments, I do not think that the Eucharist is meant to make us "special."

Last week, we were going to a First Communion, and I wanted to give a card. And of course I wanted to find a good one. So we (yes, I made him come look with me) went to look for a card. The first place we looked only had one left that I didn't like very much. So the next day we tried another place, which had a bunch to choose from, and one annoying thing in common. There is a very great over-use of the word "special" in these cards. "For a special boy" dominated the fronts of many of the cards, or sometimes something about "your special day" or, to really overdo it: "For a special boy on his special day." Yes, some cards did actually have an otherwise meaningful sentiment inside, and I found a couple that I really liked. I give extra points to cards that actually use the words "Eucharist" or "Sacrament" as well.

I know that I should not place too much importance on how greeting card sentiments are written, or have too high an expectation of knowledge on the part of those who write them. Some of the sentiments in the cards, though, did seem to have been written by someone with at least some understanding of the doctrines around the sacrament of the Eucharist. Some even sounded as if they may have been written to be Catholic, with reference (or at least implication) to the Real Presence of Jesus. The people who write these cards seem to know that a) receiving the Eucharist for the first time is a big deal and b) it's a big deal because of what it has to do with Jesus/ God's Grace, etc. They must know at least that.


So why this apparent need to assign "special"ness to the recipient? Why cloud the meaning of an otherwise meaningful sentiment about receiving the Grace of the sacrament with a "you're special" statement stamped first and foremost? The main problems I see with this are a dislocation of the significance from the sacrament itself to the recipient, and also an invention of personal achievement on the part of the recipient.

There seems to be a strong need to emphasize individual specialness in our culture, as in, being inherently and independently "special"n in one way or another, or just in a general sense. If we are "special," whatever that is supposed to mean, we are such because that is the way God has created us, but it does not come from the reception of a sacrament itself, as if it's a personal achievement of some sort; that's not what the sacraments are for. We do gain something from every sacrament that was not there before we received it, but to use an over-applied term like "special" really cheapens the value of the sacrament. To use it in the context of conveying a message to a child, it is particularly misleading to him. A child will not realize that in this context, "special" is (hopefully) meant to imply being imparted with God's grace, but to him it means "I am special, I have achieved something because of how special I am on my own, all by myself." I don't think this is what we should be teaching our children when they receive the Eucharist. Instead of saying "You're so special you get to have communion with everyone else now," we should be saying, "This is God and his grace you are receiving, this is why you need it, and why it will now help make you a better person."

So I guess what I am getting at is that we seem to think that we are already inherently great persons, and do not need God in order to achieve this personal greatness which we already assign to ourselves. This error we convey to our children when we emphasize specialness over God.

Disposable Goods, Disposable People

In 1901, King Gillette, building an idea of the latter half of the nineteenth century, invented a safety razor with disposable blades (1). A host of disposable products followed including, cameras, tissues, paper cups, and diapers, until today, the disposable good is a common, and almost indispensable feature of society (2). Disposable goods offer a certain convenience, but have three aspects that, when considered, say something about the society that uses them with such abandon.

First, one has no obligation or responsibility to a disposable good; second, disposable goods are replaceable. One disposable razor or cup is as good as another. Finally, disposable goods are cheap, both in cost to obtain them and in the value people place on them. Even non disposable goods can become disposable. One recent writer, for instance, has remarked that people do not typically dispose of their computer because it has failed, but because a new one that seemed more desirable appeared on the market (3).

Today, however, it is not only goods that are disposable; rather, over the course of the 20^th century, people too have become disposable. A divorce rate of approximately 50%, the commonness of extramarital sex and multiple partners, the high rate of abortion, and the various genocides over the course of the century make it impossible to deny that people today have become disposable. Why? Among several reasons, two stand out. One that I do not have space to fully discuss is the divorce between what Fulton Sheen calls, “freedom from” and “freedom for.” The former concerns freedom from external constraint, the latter concerns the purpose of that freedom (4). The other is the “God is dead” materialism that pervades modern society. Man is only random collections of particles in a random universe. He is only matter, and because he is only matter, he does not matter. One cannot believe in a purpose for freedom, because there is no purpose to anything, and so liberty becomes license. Neither can one believe in a person’s objective moral value; on materialism, persons have none. And so in a materialist society (whether ancient Roman or modern Western), people become disposable.

One area in which Man’s disposability is clear is sex. Here, one disposable good, the condom, helps to make people disposable. The connection between the increasing use of birth control, materialism, and Man’s disposability over the twentieth century is no coincidence.

The condom allows rejection of responsibility associated with sex and hence causes a divorce between the persons involved. Fertile sex entails significant responsibility. If a woman becomes pregnant, her ability to work may be limited, she will need to be supported, and so will the child. The condom allows “safe sex,” the rejection of this responsibility, and when responsibility is rejected, love is rejected. The two always go together, when one goes, so goes the other. “Safe sex” is absurd, but “safe love” does not even exist. Real love always burns bridges behind it. When love and responsibility are rejected, then the woman (or man), becomes replaceable. One woman (or man), is just as good as another, and when one is just as good as another, then one is just as worthless as another. So people become cheap. Sex now is simply a matter of scratching an itch and one’s partner becomes a mere scratching post. The commonness of premarital and promiscuous sex today testify to the truth of this. With responsibility rejected, people become replaceable, and they become cheap.

Children too have been disposable. Once a necessary part of a marital relationship, they are now a part of the responsibility that modernity rejects. Now they are only an optional (and often undesirable) side effect, a side effect that if not avoided, can be destroyed.

Historians once thought that people in the Middle Ages loved their children less because of high child mortality rates. There is no evidence for this. There is, however, substantial evidence that parents and people today do love children less. They are less willing to have them, and more willing to destroy them. Children are cheap. In a material cosmos a person’s value is purely subjective, that is to say, dependant on what people think. Thus, in Pagan Antiquity, a child was not a person until the father picked him up. Similarly, in Pagan Modernity, a child is not a person until the mother decides to keep him. 4,000 abortions every day testify to how cheap human life has become.

Other examples might be given, but these suffice to show the trend. To a society fond of disposable goods, one more disposable good has been added, the person. Rejecting responsibility in the name of liberty, human life has become replaceable, and it has become cheap. This it ought never to have been, and it must not be if humanity is to remain human. Otherwise, we will find that we are increasingly living in a world of disposable goods, and disposable people.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor

(2) http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1536 While writing this, I came across this book Made to Break, studying the growing use of and practical problems associated with use of disposable items.

(3) Giles Slade, Made to Break, 2007. http://www.amazon.com/Made-Break-Technology-Obsolescence-America/dp/0674025725/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302443391&sr=8-1

(4) From his talk “On Freedom” Available on You tube. I would like to write a future blog post on this talk. “Freedom from” would describe how a person must not be externally contrained, while “freedom for” would describe the purpose, such as being free to choose a spouse. Today, however, the two are divided and people insist on “freedom from” while denying the purpose of that freedom. Hence the commonness of pre-marital and promiscuous sex.

Contraceptive Culture-- Commercialized

I was recently very bothered by a TV commercial for a certain contraceptive device.  Now, really, it bothers me as a Catholic whenever I see a commercial for contraception.  When I see another commercial for yet another pill, I tend to roll my eyes and shake my head and perhaps mock the snazzy name given to it.  This was one for an IUD.  That is, an Intra-uterine device.  Similar to the pill, it is abortifacient.  These things can and will cause an abortion by preventing an embryo from being able to attach inside the uterus.

What appalled me about this commercial was not only the fact that it was for an abortifacient device, but that it was a representation and commercialization of contraceptive culture as a whole.  When I say "contraceptive culture," I don't just mean a culture in which methods of artificial birth control (ABC) are used.  That's just on the surface.  I mean also all of the concurrent characteristics of such a culture.  A few examples: A general lack of respect for the sanctity of human life and failure to recognize and value human life in its most vulnerable stage; a lack of reverence for the dignity of the person –that is, the image and likeness of God; a lack of esteem both for one's own body and the body of another, when one's own body becomes a tool to be controlled and used, or worse, a threat to be fought.  Finally, there is a lack of reverence for the sacrament of marriage and sexuality itself. 

The main purpose of contraception is to allow a "carefree" sexual (and likely non-marital) relationship, free from any potential "burden" (ie. "children").  And their commercials serve to convey how that can be made possible.  But this commercial conveys much more below the surface; unfortunately, something much more sinister about the culture in which we live. Here is a link to the commercial on YouTube.

The woman in this commercial is meant to be relatable to other women; in this case she is specifically meant to be relatable to mothers.  She is meant to represent the "typical" mother, and her children, "typical" children.  This "typical" mother's inner monologue is "Did I take my pill this morning? I can't even think of having another child," as she runs over to where her (unsupervised) children have accidentally dropped fruit on the store's floor.  The commercial's representatives of "typical" children, who result without the usage of their device, are shown to be inherently unruly and burdensome in order to convey society's general view of children.  There is also the brief but noteworthy presence of her apathetic and disinterested husband in the commercial.  He is intentionally portrayed as completely disconnected from her.  They don't even have a scene together.  To further stress society's view on children, her inner monologue concludes with "Ooooh, I think two's plenty."  OK, she adds "maybe," but who are they kidding? 

Lastly, there is the product's tagline: "Keep life simple."  Is that really all that it's about though? Simplicity?  We know already that life is not simple.  The gift that is life really is quite complex.  It is likely the most complex gift we can ever receive, and is from the most divine Source we can only try to fully imagine.  He calls us to accept His greatest gift, with all its complexities, to have faith that He will guide us through them, and not to let a desire for simplicity become a temptation to reject Sanctity.