Dr. Donald P. Asci
Applied Theology of the Body
St. John Paul II dedicated the entire sixth chapter of his theology of the body (TOB) catechesis to reaffirming and deepening the Church’s teaching on responsible parenthood, providing his most direct and extensive application of TOB to the Church’s teachings on sexual morality. Drawing upon the teachings of Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae, St. John Paul II concentrates primarily on the “essential difference” between contraception and periodic continence (in America typically called Natural Family Planning or NFP) as the basis of the ethical difference between them expressed in the teachings of the Church (TOB 122:2).
St. John Paul II clearly wants to correct the common misconception that they are both just types of “birth control” listed on medical pamphlets or that they differ only inasmuch as one uses “artificial” methods to control births. However, he primarily employs the major tenets of TOB to describe how contraception degrades the human body and corrupts the sexual intimacy of those couples who introduce it into their relationships in sharp contrast with the way that NFP fosters respect for the human body and the kind of self-mastery that promotes greater love between man and woman.
The Complex Evil of Contraception
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
Contraception is intrinsically evil. This is one of the most obvious conclusions from the anthropological, moral, and spiritual principles embedded in TOB because contraception deviates from those principles on every point.
The path to properly understanding the evil of contraception begins with understanding it in terms of a choice rather than something merely of the material order. Within the proper terminology of Catholic theology, “contraception” is not a pill, barrier, spermicide, or medical procedure but instead a deliberate choice in the heart of the person. Contraception denotes the heart’s willingness to do something to the sexuality of the body. It does not refer to the ulterior motives, circumstances, or moral responsibility of the couples who make this deliberate choice, which remain a separate set of questions, but rather their willingness to engage in a certain kind of behavior. Likewise, none of those other factors can ever negate or justify the evil found in the behavior of contraception itself because the ends never justify the means.
In terms of the behavior freely chosen, contraception can be defined as the deliberate decision to “render procreation impossible” by impeding the natural fertility of sexual intercourse (TOB 122:1; Humanae Vitae, 14). The behavior chosen to execute the deliberate decision of contraception always entails a manipulation or alteration of the human body and its sexuality, which otherwise has its own natural (although limited) generative power (TOB 122:2; Familiaris Consortio, 32). Contraception means refusing to unleash the natural generative forces (whereas being “open to life” unleashes those forces) and entails a domination of the human body that manipulates or alters the sexual faculty in order to make it conform to human desires. Contraception seeks to make the body how the person wants it to be (infertile) so that the person can do with the body what the person wants to do (sterilized sex). Scientific knowledge and artificial interventions enter the picture merely as the technical means utilized to impose the contraceptive choice on the body.
For St. John Paul II, two essential evils immediately emerge from the basic definition of contraception. The evil of contraception can be seen first in the domination of the body found at the heart of every choice to remove the procreative power of human sexuality. The manipulation and alteration at the heart of contraception entail the “domination” of the body because they violate “the insurmountable limits” of the proper stewardship over the human body by eliminating the healthy functioning of the body rather than serving it (TOB 123:1; Humanae Vitae, 17). For that reason, contraception cannot be equated with various forms of healthcare that alter the body to promote the healthy functioning of the body out of a sense of stewardship.
By “dominating” the human body and subjecting it to the individual’s desire to be infertile, contraception contradicts the spousal meaning of the body and treats the body as a sub-personal object or instrument rather than an integral part of the self. In other words, contraception is morally evil because it treats the body as something rather than someone and applies to the human person the type of technical domination and alteration that is suitable to animals, which cannot regulate their sexual activity by “self-mastery” through reason and will (TOB 123:1). It degrades the human person both by objectifying the body and by negating the self-mastery proper to persons, foregoing self-control in the name of birth control.
The second essential evil of contraception derives from the way it “falsifies” sexual intercourse, creating “sexual lies” in the innate language of the body and precluding spousal union (TOB 123:7). While the language of the body expresses total self-giving, by contraception man and woman reject the truth of their sexuality and offer altered and manipulated versions of themselves in place of their true selves. Because of the integration of the person with the body, if you alter and manipulate the body to eliminate the fertility of sexual intercourse, you cannot (and do not) give your true self but instead an altered, sterilized version of yourself. At the moment when man and woman should be joined in a deep union, contraception provides couples with “protection” against what is “unwanted”; namely, the fertility present in their true, unaltered selves. According to St. John Paul II, in that case, “one can neither speak of the truth of the reciprocal gift of the self nor of the reciprocal acceptance of oneself by the other person,” which unavoidably leads to a “violation of the inner order of conjugal communion” (TOB 123:7).
This “falsification” of the sexual act emphasized by St. John Paul II indicates that a “false self” has been offered as a substitute for the true self, but it also means that the true conjugal act has been replaced by a “false” or counterfeit form of sex that allows for physical intimacy but not the “one flesh” union of persons for which we were created male and female. By eliminating the natural fertility of the body (thereby negating the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse), contraception prevents true self-giving in sexual intercourse (thereby negating the unitive aspect of sexual intercourse). For this reason, St. John Paul II highlights the teaching that these two essential aspects are inseparable and that when the sexual act is “deprived of its procreative capacity, it also ceases to be an act of love” (TOB 123:6, emphasis original).
However, as this “falsification” not only prevents the sexual act from being an act of love, it has the further effect of reducing sexual intercourse to the pursuit of satisfaction in terms of pleasure and gratification, which corresponds to the basic definition of lust (TOB 40:3–4; CCC 2351). A couple that chooses contraception necessarily precludes their sexual act from being what man and woman do to become mother and father together and therefore effectively reduces their sexual intercourse to what man and woman do for satisfaction. In turn, this reduction of sex to the pursuit of satisfaction effectively reduces man and woman to objects of use, thereby contradicting the spousal meaning of the body and the meaning of spousal love that flows from it (TOB 33:1; 40:4–5).
In itself contraception represents a tragic breakdown of human dignity and human love, but it appears to be an even greater tragedy in light of the fact that couples could and should avoid all these evils by choosing NFP in their commitment to responsible parenthood.
The Essential Difference between Contraception and NFP
NFP has been shown (even by purely secular studies) to be highly effective in spacing births, and in this way it shares the same goal of contraception in “seeking the certainty” of avoiding a new birth (TOB 122:2; Humanae Vitae, 16). St. John Paul II grants that couples who choose contraception may have the same grave reasons to space births as those couples who practice NFP (TOB 122:3). Moreover, couples who practice NFP rely on modern science and the accurate knowledge of female and male fertility that it provides, ultimately being no less scientific or modern than couples who choose contraception. Yet, despite the shared intention, circumstances, and effectiveness in spacing births, St. John Paul II emphatically reaffirms an “essential difference” between NFP and contraception because NFP entails a radically different choice that avoids the evils of contraception (TOB 122:2).
Image by Stephanie Pratt from Pixabay
In order to grasp this difference, St. John Paul II points to the need to look beyond the notion of NFP as a “method detached from the ethical dimension proper to it” and to reject the idea that NFP amounts to a set of cleverly scheduled choices meant to somehow exploit the biological rhythms of human sexuality (TOB 125:4). Likewise, we must not confuse the theological meaning of NFP with any specific method of understanding human fertility or any other actions of the scientific or material order (like taking temperatures or charting symptoms). Instead, the meaning of NFP must be understood precisely in terms of the choice that each couple needs to make in order to space births, in terms of what their hearts must be willing to do in their sexual lives.
To effectively space births with NFP, couples must choose to abstain from sex when necessary and for as long as necessary. Catholic theology terms this choice “periodic continence” because the word “continence” here refers to “abstaining from sex” and the word “periodic” refers to the notion of “when necessary for as long as necessary” as opposed to total continence. St. John Paul II reflects deeply on the word continence precisely to highlight the virtuous attitude at the heart of NFP (TOB 127–129), so it is very important for the TOB analysis to cast NFP in these specific terms.
Certainly, it proves vital for the proper understanding of NFP to see it as the choice to abstain from sex at certain times rather than the choice to seek out infertile sex. Both logically and morally the choice to abstain from sex at certain times is the key to spacing births with NFP. Having sex does not prevent babies from being conceived, obviously, and therefore is not an essential part of NFP when done to space births. There simply is absolutely no biological or logical connection between having sex and spacing births. Instead, the spacing of the births depends directly and solely on the choice to abstain from sex at certain times.
The essential goodness of this choice derives first from the way that NFP aligns with the natural truth of the human body, which is why we call it natural, and with truth of the person, which is why we can call it self–observation. For TOB, the key to understanding the value of NFP centers on the idea that you are not just observing some biological functions, which you might exploit for your own purposes, but rather your true self expressed in the truth of your body. However, St. John Paul II also emphasizes how aligning oneself with the truth of the “order of nature” expressed in the body means aligning oneself with “the Creator’s providential plan, in the faithful realization of which consists the true good of the human person” (TOB 124:6).
In moral terms, this core element of NFP contrasts sharply with the domination and alteration of the body essential to contraception. NFP respects the dignity of the body and integrates with the truth of the body’s fertility, out of what St. John Paul II calls a “reverence” for what God has made (TOB 131:4). Far from a stance of domination, alteration, or manipulation, NFP means choosing to show reverence for the body and integrating with the body to the point of being led by the body through the self-observation at the basis of NFP. Through this integration with the body and the unwillingness to dominate and manipulate the body, NFP conforms to the spousal meaning of the body and confirms in the heart the sense in which the body is someone with intrinsic value made for love in the form of total self-gift.
We can also see the sharp contrast with contraception in how NFP demonstrates a careful respect for the language of the body and what sexual intercourse expresses in terms of total self-gift between the man and the woman. In NFP there is no alteration or manipulation of the sexuality of the body and no offering of a sterilized self in place of the true self. Consequently, there are no sexual lies and no “falsification” of the sexual act. NFP never includes a time when anything less than the authentic, natural, true self is shared with your spouse. Since NFP leaves the body unaltered, couples who practice NFP also unleash the natural (limited) forces of generation when they do have sexual intercourse, and in that way they preserve the procreative aspect of the conjugal act and thus its unitive and loving character. Based on their self-observation, they may anticipate that these forces will not currently result in conception, but they do unleash them according to the unaltered, natural truth of the body. Their sexual intercourse never ceases to be “what man and woman do to become mother and father together” and in that way maintains its true conjugal character.
Of course, the key to avoiding the essential evils of contraception derives from the self-mastery exercised in NFP, the kind of self-mastery that St. John Paul II also identifies as the key to being truly a “person” created in the Image of God (TOB 123:5). NFP exudes self-mastery where knowledge of the truth is directly implemented through bodily behavior based on that knowledge. Such knowledge-based choices are the cornerstone of how TOB expresses the dignity of the human person above the level of mere brute animals (TOB 7:1). Just as personhood makes humans radically superior to the animals, the self-mastery of NFP confers the dignity befitting persons with inner freedom in the sexual life of a couple. Animals could never practice NFP, so couples who practice NFP separate themselves even more so from animals and convincingly demonstrate that their sexual activity is truly a matter of the heart.
Love Is Patient
Image by egor105 from Pixabay
The succession of numerous differences between contraception and NFP ultimately adds up to a major difference in what they express and how they impact the sexual life of the couple. NFP enables spouses to maintain a specific dialogue of love that expresses the worth of each spouse and the dignity of the love that they share. In the choice to practice of NFP, spouses tell each other, “Sex with you is worth waiting for. You are worth waiting for. Your true self is worth waiting for, and I won’t accept any substitutes in the meantime. I would rather have the true you or just simply wait for you, but I won’t compromise and take a substitute for you. My love for you inspires self-control in me. You inspire self-control in me. Love is patient, and so am I.”
The choice of contraception, on the other hand, casts doubt on the worth of each spouse and on the power of the love that they share, conveying to each other, “I am willing to substitute you with a manipulated, altered, and sterilized version of you because I am not sure you are worth waiting for. Even if I wanted to wait, I am not sure if I have the self-control to wait for the true you, so in the meantime I want to substitute you with a sterilized version of yourself. Love is patient, but I’m not. Take the pill. Put on the condom.”
We can imagine that many couples who choose contraception simply follow the prevailing cultural currents without putting much thought into their decision and what it implies about their relationship. Nonetheless, St. John Paul II specifically mentions that he and other Church pastors consistently hear that couples choose contraception because they sense a difficulty in the self-control required by NFP. He frankly responds that such a difficulty applies only to the “man of concupiscence” who has had his inner freedom crippled by the effects of sin (TOB 128:4).
In other words, NFP is difficult the way that acknowledging and overcoming the effects of sin is difficult. NFP is difficult the way that conversion from sin and death to re-creation in Christ is difficult. NFP is difficult the way that living out the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is difficult. Conversely, NFP offers couples all the benefits of resisting concupiscence and more intensely experiencing re-creation in Christ while drawing upon the grace of their marriage. Just as contraception manifests sin and concupiscence, NFP aligns with the ethos of redemption and gives man and woman a truly Christian way to practice responsible parenthood. The way NFP couples live the sexuality of their bodies opens their hearts to the process of conversion and sanctification.
The crowning moment of this process comes from the way that such couples demonstrate to each other that they are willing and able to face difficulties out of love for each other. According to St. John Paul II, “it is a characteristic feature of the human heart to accept even difficult demands in the name of love” and to show love by making sacrifices that demonstrate the dignity and worth of your beloved (TOB 80:1). The positive value of NFP can be found in how it gives couples the opportunity to accept the demands of respecting the spousal meaning of the body and to make the sacrifices of self-mastery that embodies genuine love.
Ultimately, the choice to practice NFP echoes the confidence in the human heart that serves as the foundation for Catholic sexual morality. Couples who choose NFP say to each other, “I trust you to make great sacrifices for me. I expect you to make great sacrifices for me. I know that you think that I am worth such sacrifices, and I am confident that you can tap into the power of love and draw upon the grace of God to uphold my dignity and to proclaim my worth. And it means everything to me that you have the same confidence in me.”
Donald P. Asci, STD is Professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville and the author of The Conjugal Act as Personal Act from Ignatius Press. Married since 1993, he and his wife Michelle have six children.
This article from the July 2022 edition of Catechetical Review, Online Edition ISSN 2379-6324, Issue 8.3, is reproduced here with the permission of its publisher, Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, USA. The article originally appeared on pages 32-35 of the printed edition.
