Natural Family Planning and Sexual Vice

The two genera of sexual vice are the “natural” and the “unnatural.” Natural vice is procreative (or “integral,” “natural,” “unitive”) sexual intercourse outside of the bonds of marriage, principally deriving its immorality from the risk to potential children proceeding from the act by the absence of the protection of a stable household such as is provided in principle by marriage. Unnatural vice is essentially infertile sexual activity, whether inside of marriage or not, deriving its immorality from a corruption of the right end of the sexual faculty in the very use of that same faculty, which is a direct affront to the Creator Who designed that faculty for the weighty purposes of keeping the human race in existence and bringing souls to Himself.³⁵ Using the sexual faculty’s associated external organs in a way that makes use of the pleasures which are designed to incentivize and complete natural sexual union but either does not dispose gametes (sex cells, viz. sperm and ova) for procreative union according to the natural design of the body (i.e. sodomitic acts, autoeroticism) or actively impedes the well-functioning of gametes in view of preventing procreative union (contraception) is unnatural vice. ³⁵ See ST II-II q. 154, a. 11; it is true some conceptive sexual relations are arguably categorized by St. Thomas as “unnatural,” but these are unnatural in a secondary way, viz., as to mode rather than as to end, and they are not as grave as sins against the end. It is unfortunate that St. Thomas was as ambiguous as he was about what he was exactly referring to. See ST II-II q. 154, a. 11; a. 12, ad. 4. I propose later on in this work that IVF is unnatural vice by way of “excess,” that is, by conceiving outside the natural order. Of course, there is no treatment of such things by St. Thomas.

Of course, there are many objections to the claim that these latter acts are “unnatural” by appealing to false analogies – “using a straw,” “walking on one’s hands,” “spitting,” “running on a treadmill” – which presume to show that many acts which seem unnatural are morally unproblematic and so the claim that unnatural sexual vice is true vice is indefensible.^{36 36} St. Thomas actually addresses the example of walking on one’s hands in SCG III, ch. 122: “Nor, in fact, should it be deemed a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of generating and bringing up children, on the argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different use than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) because man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species.”

These sorts of arguments also fail to make proper distinctions about how diverse faculties actually work. For example, the digestive faculty is an “inward facing” faculty – it takes matter (food) and uses it to do something to oneself (deliver nutrients). To “pervert” or fundamentally undermine the digestive faculty would not mean using indigestible food, or even to purge oneself of digestible food; rather, it would mean somehow hijacking the digestive system as such to do something other than pass nutrition into the cells of the body. The use of the digestive faculty’s organs which are by their nature directed to a certain end by making them act upon something which is not and cannot be conducive to its natural end of delivering nutrients to the body. For example, to create a kind of “human battery” which somehow saps away the nutrients and calories prepared for the body’s use by the act of digestion accomplished by the digestive organs insofar as they are exclusively designed to deliver nutrients to the body. (Of course, this would quickly end in one’s death if not reversed.) Breathing is much the same – if one’s lungs could somehow be rewired to filter the air in a room rather than oxygenate one’s bloodstream, we would see the perversion of the faculty of breathing. The faculty of communication is “outward facing,” as it terminates in something other than oneself, namely, another person’s mind. The sexual faculty is also an “outward facing” faculty. Its object is “another,” first being its procreative pair as a primary agent (man acting upon woman) and second its procreative pair as a secondary causes (sperm acting upon ovum). Third, there is the final terminus itself, namely, the child which results from the union of gametes. The terminus being “another human” is what makes the sexual faculty’s intentionality “outward facing” even in the woman, whose principal act is a direct function of the vegetal soul (rather than the animal soul, as with the man).³⁷ More will be said momentarily about the importance of “secondary causes” in the sexual faculty’s structure. The point is that making proper distinctions about what is actually occurring in “abnormal” uses of various faculties is critical to having a clear way to explain what is at issue. ³⁷ The “vegetal soul” is the “part” or “dimension” of a human being’s soul which is “plant-like” – its powers are augmentation (growth), nutrition, and reproduction (the production of gametes and their fundamental disposition for procreative union). The “animal soul” is the part of a human being’s soul which is “animal-like” – its powers include especially sensation and locomotion. The man’s sexual act is principally animal in that it requires movement and sensation in a way that the woman’s principal sexual act (ovulation and reception of male gametes) does not, as it is fundamentally involuntary and passive, though of course normal sexual acts involve the use of the rational soul (the free choice to engage in the act), and sensation and motion on the part of the woman. The point is that the most fundamental structure of human reproduction does not include these as necessities.

Without an exhaustive “debunking” of objections based on false analogies about “perverting” or “opposing nature,” we can say such analogies always at least miss the core of the argument, over and above what has been said about the structure of faculties: the matter being disposed for the infusion of a rational soul meant to benefit the earth and ultimately to worship God forever in Heaven (rather than maintaining one’s own equilibrium or good pleasure) is not rightly subjected to the direct control of a mere individual human being the way bodily motion or other such things are,³⁸ and the order of human generation and its act are essentially and primarily related to the aforementioned weighty purposes, which purposes are thwarted by subverting that order by using wrong matter (i.e. homosexual acts, autoeroticism, etc.) or by actively impeding generation (contraception).³⁹ This is an affront more or less directly against the Creator Who designed the order of human generation to work in a certain way through particular organs and acts, which order is being opposed by the practitioner of unnatural vice. Mere human beings are not set over the matter into which God wishes to infuse a rational soul insofar as that matter is part of an unfolding process which God designed for Himself to use; the matter regards what is equal to man (another human being) and what is above man (the creative power of God); sex cells are not like a normal plant or animal in this sense.^{40 38} We have a special kind of authority or discretion over faculties and powers which directly affect ourselves because of our own natural knowledge and love for our own being and good. So long as we respect the principal of totality (the good of the whole) and avoid indecency and scandal, we enjoy great freedom – i.e., to walk on our hands. ³⁹ There is no shortage of ways to misunderstand the point. What must be grasped is that Christian moral science fundamentally concerns order rather than consequences. God put an order into human generation’s act and its secondary causes, which order must be respected. To disrespect the design of the Creator, especially in such a serious matter, is to offend Him as its architect. Beyond this, it is relatively easy to see the social contagion of unnatural vice together with its catastrophic social effects. For a historical study on general laxity in sexual morals and the resulting tendency towards civilizational collapse, see J.D. Unwin’s monumental study documenting this phenomenon, Sex and Culture (1934). ⁴⁰ The older theory of “delayed ensoulment” in which a “second conception” occurs (viz., the infusion of the rational soul into pre-human matter resulting from the “first conception”) is a helpful foil; here, to kill the pre-human matter is treated as the sin of abortion on account of that which God will do to that matter, that is, give it a rational soul, even if the juridical consequences might have differed at times. The killing takes away this matter from God, Who designed the process of human generation. It would perhaps be appropriate to call the killing of conceived pre-human matter “supercontraception.” (Note that John Paul II leaves space for the “delayed ensoulment” position, even though this opinion is presently out of favor. See Evangelium Vitae, §60.)

The average presentation that is made in parochial environments for natural family planning (“NFP”) leaves many people wondering whether and how it differs from contraception. To summarize, NFP involves monitoring the fertility cycles of the woman, usually in view of using the infertile periods for relations which will not result in children or are at least minimally likely to. (NFP can also be used in order to specify the most fertile periods of the woman in view of maximizing the chance of conception, which use does not concern us here – the term “NFP” in this book means “continence during fertile times combined with conjugal acts during infertile times in view of avoiding conception.”) The rigorist objection raised against the use of NFP is that it amounts to contraception, insofar as it uses and presumes upon infertility as a condition for the marital act. The typical rigorist supposes that one forms an intention against having children, then acts in the course of using marriage to guarantee this, with the interior disposition summarized by the statement, “I would not use marriage if it would result in conception,” and thereby sins against the nature of the marriage act and therefore against God just the same as “normal contraception.” It is also sometimes said that a “contraceptive mentality” animates this practice.⁴¹ The argument appears strong – the same result is obtained as with artificial contraception, and the same condition is set down, namely, that there is no reasonable possibility of conception. The couple appears to “use” the infertile period of the woman as a contraceptive means. What difference is there between NFP and artificial contraception which does not reduce to “physicalist” morals? ⁴¹ This phrase lends itself to many meanings, such that it is not particularly useful for precise moral discourse.

The familiar rejoinder is twofold: first, that merely abstaining from sexual activity when there is fertility is not a sin, and second, that NFP trains the couple in virtue and communication. Both of these statements are (mostly) true, but they largely miss the point. The first argument does not address the reality that the commission of the sexual act during infertile periods specifically depending upon the infertility of the woman is not merely abstaining from sexual activity during fertile periods, it is to do something. In other words, the default state of an individual person is not conjugal activity; to use marriage requires a positive choice. Therefore, this particular choice of a conjugal act must find a justification for itself within the context of trying to avoid conception in the same act, and, if we are to save Catholic moral theology, this justification must somehow avoid collapsing into a justification of artificial contraception. The second argument does not respond to the central objection at all but merely gives a probable good consequence of the discipline. Unfortunately, one does not often find much discussion beyond these two points in the popular literature. There is a marked failure to grapple with the objection seriously, when in fact this point confuses an enormous amount of people.

St. Thomas definitively rejects natural relations which happen to be naturally infertile from the category of unnatural vice:

It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.^{42 42} Summa Contra Gentiles (hereafter SCG), III, 122, 5: “Ex quo patet quod contra bonum hominis est omnis emissio seminis tali modo quod generatio sequi non possit. Et si ex proposito hoc agatur, oportet esse peccatum. Dico autem modum ex quo generatio sequi non potest secundum se: sicut omnis emissio seminis sine naturali coniunctione maris et feminae; propter quod huiusmodi peccata contra naturam dicuntur. Si autem per accidens generatio ex emissione seminis sequi non possit, non propter hoc est contra naturam, nec peccatum: sicut si contingat mulierem sterilem esse.” Note that “accident” here is referring to the nature of a thing itself as distinct from its essential characteristics; it is not about one’s knowledge of infertility, but rather the condition of infertility inhering in what is designed to be fertile.

The fundamental order of the sexual faculties of the man and the woman are preserved in the material order in the case of infertility, they are simply inhibited on account of a defect in the functioning of the sexual faculty itself, in this case, of the woman. It is the system itself which constitutes the sexual faculty whence the defect comes which renders the woman infertile. To make use of the sexual faculty when it is thus defective is not a deliberate frustration of the sexual faculty’s end, like contraception; the latter introduces something alien to the sexual faculty in order to subvert its end in an otherwise natural and voluntary sexual act⁴³ (such as an “intrauterine device” or “IUD”) or removes something from the sexual faculty by force in order to subvert its end (such as a hysterectomy done for the sake of sterility). Otherwise, even to pay the debt in the case of a spouse who is known to be habitually sterile would constitute a grave sin against nature, which is untrue on St. Thomas’ account of the duty to pay the debt. ⁴³ Non-abortifacient retroactive contraception can be justified when the act was not voluntary or was in and of itself illicit – one is certainly not bound to will the natural consequences (viz., resulting procreation) of what is immoral in itself according to its species (i.e. adultery) – but in so contracepting one must also at least implicitly repudiate the act itself. A voluntary natural act of adultery is actually made more evil by the use of retroactive contraception if the evil act itself is not repented of, as one consents both to the adultery and to the perversion of its act. In fact, one is bound to use contraceptive means to expel seed from such a union, just as one is bound to repent of the act.

The core of the difference between NFP and contraception regards the role of secondary causes with their own proper finality towards fructification or attainment of the naturally indicated end, namely, procreation. The point reduces to the distinction between the intentional occasion of failure and the prevention of success. This distinction is subtle and easily missed.

Secondary causes (gametes) set in motion by the principal agents (the man and the woman) are not the same as the principal agent itself.⁴⁴ Gametes (sperm and egg) have their own causative power ordered towards the end of procreation and thus have a kind of “natural intention” or inclination. This inclination is worked toward by exterior dispositions flowing from the nature of the male and female reproductive systems, including locomotion (self-movement) on the part of the sperm. Due to the design of nature, subsequent to natural completed sexual union, gametes are “supposed to” meet and cause procreation by principles belonging to their own constitution as cells, and to do so is their “responsibility” so to speak, which responsibility is not to be usurped by any other cause. This is because in fact the sexual faculty is designed to work by means of the disposition of gametes for meeting their procreative pair by the natural union of man and woman through the exterior reproductive organs. Therefore, the only responsibility that a man or a woman has with respect to gametes insofar as gametes are causative of procreation is to dispose gametes to causing procreation by such natural bodily union, and to usurp the role of the gametes themselves in finding their procreative pair is itself to do something unnatural by excess, such as with IVF or other artificial insemination procedures.⁴⁵ What this ultimately means is that if the gametes do not meet and cause procreation after natural union, it is not primarily the case that the man or the woman failed to cause procreation, it is primarily the case that the gametes failed to cause procreation. The question is then whether the man or woman did something to interfere with the well-functioning of the gametes or the processes which affect their reproductive disposition, somehow impeding their natural intentionality toward each other. Interference with the well-functioning of gametes or the process by which they are disposed for reproductive union in view of restricting or eliminating the possibility of conception is contraception properly speaking.^{46 44} The “principal cause” or “primary cause” is the being which reproduces its like, in this case a human. ⁴⁵ It is probably advantageous to speak of IVF and similar procedures as “unnatural vice by excess” and non-procreative acts as “unnatural vice by defect.” ⁴⁶ This would include the use of chemical agents which directly impede gametes (like spermicide), and it would also extend to the use of chemical agents that reduce ovulation (“the pill”) specifically in order to prevent conception. Inducing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (excessive stress or exercise interrupting menstruation) to prevent conception would also seem to come under this category, albeit without introducing a foreign substance into the body; the point is that the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian system is supposed to work a certain way, namely, producing regular menstruation, according to its nature in relation to the whole person, which well-functioning is being interrupted in view of preventing conception. Even though it is natural “as a reaction,” the stress is the kind of thing which should not be there, just like blood should be in the extremities but if shock is induced then it is natural that blood gathers in the torso. Such inflictions upon oneself can only be justified under the principle of totality, to which the inhibition of the proper functioning of a faculty in its very use would never correspond. (Of course, the pill and extraordinary amounts of exercise could theoretically licitly be used for other reasons without the desired effect of infertility, which risky and harmful behavior calls for its own justification through the principle of totality but would not be contraceptive strictly speaking except materially. To be formally contraceptive, the will must specifically incline to interrupting the well-functioning of the reproductive system in order that gametes are prevented from meeting their reproductive pair in a freely chosen sexual act. Accidentally obtaining such a state would become formally contraceptive when a woman has the will “to have achieved this state in order to avoid conception in conjugal acts” – merely delighting in the lack of fertility in a given act on account of the abnormal state of her body, while likely immoral in many or even nearly all cases due to a lack of generosity in procreation and an excess of desire for carnal union and even lack of love for one’s own health, is not itself contraceptive strictly speaking – it is only toeing the line.)

This intermediate step in the chain of causation in the procreative use of the sexual faculty is absolutely critical to understand. It bears repeating: the sperm and the egg fail to cause procreation when they do not meet or otherwise do not unite to form a new individual life when the principal agents (the man and the woman) engage in the exterior act which nature ordains for the procreative disposition of gametes (conjugal union). The man and the woman only fail to procreate by way of extending to them what is properly said of the gametes. If something is added or removed which is part of the natural system in which gametes are disposed for union (the entire reproductive system) so that they fail to unite, the gametes are prevented from procreating; if the gametes are simply foreseen not to unite because of infertility, and that infertile condition is chosen intentionally to accompany the act yet without the will to cause infertility by an intervention if needed to procure it, the gametes are merely intentionally occasioned to fail to procreate.

This intentional occasioning of failure could be due either to an intrinsic problem with the gametes themselves (viz., unhealthy sperm or eggs which cannot cause procreation due to that condition), or more frequently some disposition of the reproductive system (usually in the woman) towards not facilitating procreative union of gametes. With NFP we are concerned with the condition characterized by the lack of a fertile egg having been released from an ovary within a certain timeframe which would allow for natural union of that egg with a sperm cell. This condition of “periodic natural infertility” is one which would not allow for the gametes to reach their natural end of procreative pairing following a normal use of the sexual faculty (viz., a conjugal act). To engage in conjugal acts during known periodic natural infertility so that the meeting of gametes will not occur is merely to occasion the failure of procreation rather than to prevent it.⁴⁷ To add something to the reproductive system, or to remove something from the reproductive system, either of the man or the woman, so that conception will not occur is to prevent conception, not merely to occasion its failure.^{48 47} Habitual infertility can also be such a condition, but it is not the main concern with respect to NFP. ⁴⁸ Beyond an actual intention to create infertility by a positive intervention in the present (i.e. the normal case of using a birth control pill), the key question is whether an intervention into the reproductive system to prevent conception is virtually intended, whether by having previously created habitual infertility and continuing indirectly (or mindlessly) to will its efficacy in preventing conception, or a willingness to cause infertility by a temporary or permanent intervention in the reproductive system if it was actually necessary in order to prevent conception (as opposed to there being presently a condition making procreation unlikely or impossible, such as illness, age, or periodic natural infertility); this is to say, if one would contracept if needed to prevent pregnancy, then one’s sexual act is contraceptive by a conditional (and normally virtual) intention and comes under the same kind of moral judgment. This is the most appropriate use of the phrase “contraceptive mentality” from a casuistic point of view. The will for naturally occurring processes to cause infertility, whether cyclical (ovulation, etc.) or permanent (menopause), is equivalent to willing the woman’s health, up to the point where one is too desirous of sexual activity done on account of that infertility but it will not be contraceptive absent a willingness to intervene positively if necessary to precent conception (virtual intention). Desiring injury or sickness that causes infertility, yet without actually intervening to cause injury or sickness, is indeed a perverse will insofar as one wants injury or sickness and insofar as the infertility caused by it is willed out of immoderate desire for conjugal acts which would be done on account of that infertility, but if there is no will to make a positive intervention by causing injury or sickness (actually or virtually) then there is not contraception properly speaking.

In other words, contraception is a means or a method which is applied to the man or the woman⁴⁹ to make a conjugal act infertile. Simply using marriage when it will be infertile when such infertility is insisted upon as a condition for the act is not a means applied to make a conjugal act infertile; this would amount to saying that the act was used upon itself – an absurdity. ⁴⁹ Or, one might say it is a means applied to the gametes of the man or the woman, even if applied through affecting an organ of the man or the woman.