Spiritual Considerations

In general, all the benefits of chastity are contained also in the right use of marriage. Chastity as a virtue subjects the body to the order of reason in the use of venereal pleasure. As an infused virtue, that is, operating under the form of charity, it subjects the body to the order of spiritual thinking, especially freeing oneself for the pursuit of contemplation in the context of continence, especially under a vow, whether temporary or permanent (mutuality being taken for granted on the part of one’s spouse). Infused temperance is founded upon the natural “acquired” virtue of temperance, itself correlated to Matrimony as a sacramental base.^{155 155} The ordering of the sacraments, virtues, Gifts, Fruits, and Beatitudes in this section is taken from St. Thomas’s treatment of the topic throughout the ST I-II. In general, an extended study of such things with regard to marriage, and to NFP specifically, would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Chastity as a Fruit of the Holy Spirit is a delight in the act of the virtue of chastity on account of supernatural friendship with God; it is spiritual delight in the act of controlling the most violent rebelliousness of our flesh in its fallen state in order to know, love, and serve God. This Fruit rests upon the Gift of Fear of the Lord, which is a reverence for God as Father and a desire to cling to Him as a Friend. This Gift is founded upon the theological virtue of hope, the supernatural desire to reach God with His help. When absolutely perfected in act, the Fruit of Chastity manifests in poverty of spirit, the first Beatitude, which humbles one before God. For St. Thomas, this order has the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as its associated base. (Thus the order is: Extreme Unction, hope, Fear of the Lord, Chastity, poverty of spirit.) In light of this whole progression we see our bodies for what they are – corrupted and corruptible, but also able to be healed and conquered, and able to be saved and restored in the Resurrection by the Lord; but saved not with anything of ourselves we possess except grace and virtue which have been given by God in our lifetime, and which we could not earn on our own without His help. The more one pursues the right mode of the use of marriage, let alone overcomes its lawful use in favor of spiritual goods, the more one will receive such blessings in the interior life, and the lights to find them more and more.

Of course, the first difficulty to tackle in marital chastity is the temptation towards unnatural vice. Before worrying about self-control in the use of periodic continence, let alone the higher gifts of the spiritual life, a couple who has not moved beyond the struggle against unnatural vice (private self-abuse and pornography, consensual contraception of various kinds, “completed” unnatural acts, and extremely immoderate foreplay or other acts annexed to true conjugal union which amount to self-abuse) must do this first.¹⁵⁶ This being achieved, I propose that it is not possible, or is at least very difficult, to advance in chastity when taking for granted that the recreational use of sex within marriage in the context of actively trying to avoid procreation. ¹⁵⁶ I am well aware that this sentence opens its own whole discussion of casuistry, some of it rather complex, especially about acts which are remotely connected to conjugal union but do not characterize it. As for questions admitting of a more direct answer, I refer the reader especially to the opinions laid down by St. Alphonsus for consideration. Most pointedly, St. Alphonsus observes that the use of the generative organs of a woman other than the man’s wife in preparation for completed natural union with his wife is real adultery, and therefore the use of non-generative organs of the wife (as a kind of prolonged simulation of natural union) in preparation for completed natural union with her is real sodomy, even though incomplete. (See Theologia Moralis, Book VI, Q. 916, etc.) The key seems to be about the proportionality between the stage that the body has reached in preparation for completed union and the exterior act which is being done in view of completed union. At a certain point, one is not “preparing for union” except by an artifice of the will, anymore than throwing dough in the sink or the trash can while the oven is heating is “preparing to bake bread” simply because one intends to put the dough in the oven after one has been sufficiently amused by disproportionate superfluities – or even to keep the oven running after the bread has been baked (“completion of pleasure for the woman after the man”). A full discussion of these topics goes well beyond the scope of the present text but should be noted nonetheless as characteristic of the laxity found in the doctrine popular authors on marital chastity, who never seem to grapple with the classical authors or even seem aware that these issues have been litigated at some length.

It could be the case that a new couple is terribly struggling with out of control desires, a state which normally accompanies youth and is in fact often made stronger by the thrill of being newly married. This could possibly mean that legitimate recourse could be had to NFP “in act” quite frequently, even many times a month. However, speaking frankly, a couple that is sincerely trying to improve their self-control with the help of the normal means afforded them by nature and grace, especially the sacraments and frequent prayer, ought to reach the point where they use NFP “in act” only a few times a year, if at all. This is to say, both husband and wife ought to master their concupiscence sufficiently to need very little help through conjugal union by recourse to infertile periods, should they have a sufficient reason to avoid children in the first place. Not progressing in this way is a sign of a lack of basic generosity with the Lord and unseriousness about their state in life.^{157 157} It is also generally true that men and women progress somewhat differently in their habitual intensity of desire. This natural dynamic has implications for a higher-level discussion of the ascetical progression of men and women in the pursuit of chastity, including under the head of infused temperance. This is a topic for investigation in a separate text.

In truth, many couples who live the “NFP lifestyle” think themselves to be very ascetical and self-disciplined. They are not, and in fact many times they are ordering their very small deprivations towards delayed carnal pleasure which they are actually obliged to forego. This is not asceticism; it is something more like a woman who is dieting with the goal of being ogled with mild desire by passersby on the beach during next month’s vacation and calling it “fasting.”

One dreadful and thankfully incorrect conclusion which could be reached from the doctrine set forth herein is that marriage is or ought to be a rather boring, stale, and legalistic relationship. Cartoonish ideas of Victorian-era mores may abound in one’s imagination after being told that self-restraint is necessary even within marriage. I wish to clear the air: marriage ought to be a lively (and, ideally, romantic) pursuit of mutual goods, even affective goods within the use of marriage. There is, however, a catch – the more sexual activity one desires, the more “open to life” one must be. Marriage as an institution exists for the betterment of the couple, but it also exists for the building up of earthly society and the Kingdom of God, by raising good and virtuous citizens and by making saints who will worship God in this life and the next, respectively. Spouses who simply want to “have a nice time” in a “boutique-marriage” may feel quite satisfied with themselves and with their lives, but they are actually socially stagnant with each other, spiritually weak, and generally unfulfilled, and all this can be true even without falling into grave sin. They are socially stagnant with each other because there is no need to search out the limits of the other’s capacity for self-giving and the creativity and communication which its effective application demands. They are spiritually weak because they are not practicing properly the basic demands of infused temperance, nor are they forced to grow in virtue by the increasing demands of managing a growing family in humility, patience, and charity. They are generally unfulfilled because they are not maximizing their capacity as a couple, and given that their relationship with each other is the backbone for understanding their own place in the world, this is a highly significant factor. The question which ought to occur to a couple – even haunt them – is, “Are we trying to be all that we can be for God and the world as husband and wife?”

Couples ought to feel freed by their chastity. Freedom opens one up towards God. The too-frequent use of marriage unnecessarily conforms the heart and mind more and more to the pleasures of the flesh. In fact, even the licit use of marriage tends overall toward a strengthening concupiscible desires and making them more frequent, despite healing concupiscence according to its momentary effects and its relation to reason (by constraining its satisfaction to being within the marriage bond). This whittles away at the life of prayer and ultimately at the relationship of the couple themselves insofar as it is rooted in Christ. Even the slightest movement away from the recreational use of marriage, whether towards the positive intention of having children, or towards more prolonged continence, will tend to open the minds and hearts of the couple towards greater horizons in the spiritual life and within their own marriage which they are likely not even able to imagine. Eventually they may even be prepared to resolve to be perpetually continent for the sake of the Kingdom, which will tend towards freeing them from worldly desires more and more.

The witness offered by a couple who not only are “open to life” perpetually but who are also disciplining themselves over and above this give a very strong witness to the reality of the spiritual life and the next world, as well as showing the right order between a couple and this world. They demonstrate that self-control over the body for the sake of opening oneself up more and more to God is worth it; they manifest by their joy that they are happier than those who lack such discipline; they promote the idea that procreation is done not only as an act which is psychologically and existentially fulfilling for the couple, but is also done as a help to the community and the human race in general, and is done chiefly as an act of religion such that the discussion of whether to have more children revolves chiefly around what can reasonably be offered to God in worship of Him. This discourse tracks the growth of the individual soul in the life of asceticism and prayer in general – “What should I give to God right now?” Penances and pious disciplines ought not crush one, lest despair, bitterness, neurosis, or pride overwhelm the soul, but growth will often involve some discomfort. This is also true of the natural progress of the couple who is honestly seeking to be generous with their conjugal life for the worship of God by raising up saints who will praise Him forever in Heaven.

A rigorous discipline of voluntary prolonged continence will also prepare a couple for if and when the moral necessity of such a practice is imposed by the realities of bodily health which either render the slightest chance of conception a deadly gamble or make the use of marriage itself seriously dangerous. Voluntary prolonged continence will also prepare a couple to embrace permanent continence if and when it seems spiritually opportune. This must be mutually agreed upon, even for spiritual reasons – in the Catechism of Trent, for example, we read the implicit warning about the woman needing permission to go abroad,¹⁵⁸ which seemingly concerns not just vanity excursions but also pilgrimages, but seemingly not extended to penances involving travel, as was once common.¹⁵⁹ Certainly, work necessary for the proper sustenance of the family which involves extended travel admits of its own justification, for which reason it seems the permission for men to go abroad is not mentioned by the text.^{160 158} “Domi vero libenter se contineant, nisi necessitas exire cogat; idque sine viri permissu facere nunquam audeant.” (Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini, Part III, ch. VIII, q. XXVII; Ratisbon edition, 1905, p. 248.) ¹⁵⁹ See Lateran II’s (1139) prescribed penances for arsonists, indicating a year of service of God (presumably in a hospital or pilgrim hostel) in Spain or the Holy Land (Canon 18); see also ST Supp., q. 28, a. 3 (on a public penance involving travel). St. Thomas tells us, however, that the man may go abroad on his own without the permission of the wife to engage in a crusade. (ST Supp., q. 64, a. 6, resp. 1) The discussion of the casuistry related to the “bottom line” regarding the payment of the marriage debt is a worthy endeavor requiring its own dedicated text after deep and careful study of the literature and legal precedents. ¹⁶⁰ Nowhere in the moral tradition will one find an exception for the husband to take extended leave of his wife, depriving her of her conjugal rights and other assistance, for frivolous reasons. As St. Thomas teaches, man and woman are equal with respect to the marriage debt, even if they are not equal with respect to the governance of the household or their relation to public life. (See ST Supp., q. 64, a. 5.)

It ought to be noted that the advice to withdraw more and more from even the licit use of marriage is for the better, not for the good. This is to say, one should not feel pressured to do so. So too should couples not scruple about whether they are “justified enough” in using their rights in this or that instance. Rather, one ought to develop the aspiration to be honest about one’s limits and needs in a spirit of realistic generosity. Certainly, there will be mistakes in judgment. Putting up with one’s own small (or large) faults is part of the normal path of discipleship, and so too is dealing with moral ambiguities. The key is to trust in Christ’s mercy, without presuming upon it, as if it were owed by natural right.

Couples who do not take up NFP as a “lifestyle” also avoid various snares and obstacles to their marital and spiritual health – they allow themselves to be sexually fulfilled when nature most inclines to the act (viz., during the woman’s fertile time) and thus avoid psychological tensions which would accompany specifically foregoing acts during that time; they do not contribute to any sort of scandal related to population control or give the impression that they are “cheating the system”; they do not give the impression that they do not wish to offer children as saints to God; they are better disposed to welcoming an unintended pregnancy.^{161 161} Cf. Dr. N. Orville Griese, The Rhythm in Marriage and Catholic Morality, p. 62-74.

All this is reason for clergy, moralists, doctors, other relevant authorities, and even couples themselves from recommending NFP wholesale without at least a good deal of caution. Rather, it ought to be emphasized that the same sort of technical methods could and should be used primarily to determine when a woman is most fertile that conception might be easier.