Why is the Church opposed to contraceptive use? And what is Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

This question is complex enough that I will break it up into pieces in answering it. First, what does the Church teach concerning contraception? Second, What is so great about NFP? Third, why is contraception a sin?

What Is the Church Teaching Concerning Contraception?
The Church teaching concerning contraceptive use is very old, and traces itself explicitly to the early (indeed, apostolic) days of the Church; implicitly it can be traced back even further. It is nicely summarized by Pope Pius VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae ("On Human Life"):
Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

In other words, no means of artificial birth control—whether by permanent sterilization, condom, oral contraceptive, patch, etc—is morally licit in the normal course of sexual relations [1]. After a brief paragraph concerning "therapeutic" uses of contraception [2], the Holy Father addresses the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP):
The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

So for those who have good reasons to delay (or space) childbirths, there is a morally licit method for doing this. So before I return to why the Church teaches that contraception is morally bad, I suppose I should say some things about NFP.

What Is NFP and Why Is It so Great?
In actuality, there are several methods of practicing NFP—the Creighton model, the Marquette method, the Sympto-Thermal approach—and all of them work not only as well as most artificial forms of birth control, but actually better. For example, according to Marquette University, both the Marquette and Sympto-Thermal approaches to NFP have between a 98-99.6% "success" rate, meaning that per hundred users per year there will be between 0.4-2 pregnancies among sexually active women using these methods correctly to avoid becoming pregnant; and if used incorrectly—e.g. following"typical" use—the success rate is between 89-92%, or 8-11 pregnancies per hundred women. Compare that to, say, condoms (98% if correct, 85% typical) or "the pill" which has basically the same success rate (0.3 pregnancies per 100 if used correctly, 8 per hundred with typical use) [3]. Lest this appear to be "rigging" the results by using a source which is biased toward NFP, the Guttmacher Institute—former research arm of Planned Parenthood—actually provides similar statistics to these, though they do not have data for "typical use" of the standard NFP approaches. In other words, NFP works just fine for delaying pregnancy.

So much for the purely "economic" side of birth control: that is, for the strict comparisons concerning how well NFP works as opposed to other methods. Those interested in discovering more about how to practice NFP should contact one of the organizations which help to educate about NFP methods; I would recommend the Couple-to-Couple League, which focuses on the Sympto-Thermal method. However, the "economic" picture of "does it work, or doesn't it" is not the only consideration which ought to be made; and this remains true even if we ignore moral considerations (after all, we can use NFP with a contraceptive mindset). Consider some of the side-effects of, for example, oral contraceptives. There are a host of possible side-effects associated with each method of artificial birth control. The hormonal forms of birth control—oral contraceptive, injections, patches—alone come with a fairly long list of potential side-effects: "The common side effects of these are all similar. Increased acne, weight gain, depression, spotting between periods, loss of libido, vaginal infections and nausea/vomiting are all possible side effects of hormonal birth control methods. Serious side effects include blood clots, a possible increased risk of cervical cancer, heart attacks and strokes."

NFP comes with no side-effects, since it involves abstaining from intercourse during the period of the woman's cycle when she is fertile—I find that in practice this means about 10-12 days. There are no side effects from doing this, unless you want to include an increase in non-sexual intimacy (without any particular loss of sexual intimacy, I might add) and a monthly sense that sex is fresh and new [4]. Moreover, NFP has a relatively high continuation rate when compared to artificial methods of birth control, meaning that NFP users are more likely to continue practicing it than are users of the various forms of contraception with respect to using those artificial methods:"For example, spermicides have a 42 percent annual continuation rate; the condom, 53 percent; the shot, 56 percent; the diaphragm, a 57 percent rate; and the Pill, 68 percent. What about NFP? Research of 1,876 couples using the Creighton Model of NFP showed that it has an annual continuation rate of 89 percent—which is higher than any form of reversible contraception." According to a study conducted by Dr Robert Lerner, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, NFP users:

• have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate;
• experience happier marriages;
• are happier and more satisfied in their everyday lives;
• have considerably more marital relations;
• share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept;
• realize a deeper level of communication with spouse;
• are appreciably more religious and attend church more often;

Most couples who use NFP would, if asked, admit to all of these things. Those of us who do practice NFP are ultimately happier for it.

But Why Is Contraception a Sin?
So, other that that, what is wrong with contraception? Most of the things I've listed so far might be classed as reasons to practice NFP and not to use contraception, but few if any of them could exactly be called "moral" reasons per se. Similarly, Pope Paul VI warned in his encyclical against some of the dangers of contraceptive use for society [5], but these are by-and-large prudential (and very prophetic) warnings for society as a whole [6]. Recall that the Church's authority extends to matters of faith and morals, so it is worth considering the moral reasons why the Church continues to teach (and always will) that contraception is evil. The short answer is that contraception interferes with the natural order—that is, the Natural Moral Law—by attempting to subvert God's design in our nature, not to mention that it is opposed to both the purpose and the meaning of marriage, and hence also of sexual intercourse.
Since this is supposed to be the "long" answer, I will elaborate on these points. To quote Dietrich von Hildebrand,
"Love is the primary meaning of marriage just as the birth of new human being is its primary end....Two human beings can also turn to face one another, and in touching one another in an interpenetrating glance, give birth to a mysterious fusion of their souls. They become conscience of one another, and making the other the object of his contemplation and responses, each can spiritually immerse himself in the other. This is the I-thou relationship, in which the partners are not side by side, but face-to-face.

Of all terrestrial communions, conjugal love is the most pronounced form of an I-thou relationship. The beloved person is the object of our thoughts, sentiments, will, hope, and longing. She becomes the center of our life (as far as created goods are concerned). He whose heart is filled with such conjugal love for his beloved lives not only with his beloved, but for his beloved."

Love is the primary meaning of marriage, and procreation is its primary end. There are thus two things which marriage is "for": procreation, meaning the begetting, conceiving, birthing, and raising of children to continue the human race and supply new members to the Church and to the heavenly kingdom; and the deepening of love and intimacy between the spouses. The two are not unrelated. But sexual intercourse—which was, in an older period, often called the "marital embrace"--is the physical expression of married love. It is not for nothing that we say that we consummate a marriage through sexual intercourse, that is, we bring marriage to its natural conclusion, or, better, to its end: it is the act which represents the natural end for which marriage exists. But if marriage is "for" procreation and intimacy, then this means that the sexual act must be "for" procreation and intimacy as well, that is, the begetting and conceiving of children is its purpose, and it must express intimacy as its meaning.

Now consider what contraception is "for," to say nothing of what it "does."

Contraception is for preventing the begetting, conceiving, or in many cases birthing of children—and this prevention is meant to work in some way against our natural design. Thus, we might also say that it is "for" controlling (and, really, suppressing) the natural reproductive abilities of one or the other partner: condoms and spermicides are meant to be used to control male fertility, the pill and the patch and the IUD are meant to control the female fertility. Contraception is meant to temporarily severe that part of our natures, as if to remove it from us if but for a moment. It is as if, to borrow an extreme analogy from Mrs Erin Manning,
"a young married man and woman are discussing their intimate life, and the man admits to his wife, 'I do love our life of intimacy, but there is one thing I really, really hate about you. I've never told you, because I thought I could get over it, but--I hate your hands. They are big and awkward for a woman, and you have knobby knuckles. Unless you agree to cut off your hands, I don't want to engage in marital activity with you any more. But our intimacy is important, so I'm sure you'll see how necessary this is.'

"The wife nods (remember, this is an extreme analogy) and says, 'As long as we're being honest, I have to admit that there's something I hate about you, too. Your nose is too big. It gets in the way when I'm trying to kiss you; oh, and your ears are really ugly, too. But our intimacy is, as you said, important--and we need that unitive aspect of marriage, right? So I'll continue marital activity as long as you cut off your nose and ears.'"

Does this analogy seem more palatable if the wife's hands and the husband's ears and nose can be re-attached soon after intercourse? Yet this is, in effect, exactly what we do when we insist that our spouse must suppress (or sever) his or her fertility before engaging in intercourse. It says, "I love you as a person, but not as a whole person; I love you, but only most of you."

Which is to say, "I love you, but not even as much as I am naturally capable of loving you." We suppress and control diseases or their symptoms, not the normal and healthy functioning of the body! Indeed, this control and suppression of one part of the body—indeed, this power over our own bodies—is often ultimately exercised not by one spouse over himself (which is bad enough), but rather of one spouse over another. When the former happens, the first spouse is in effect saying to the second, "This is my body, which is not given up for you," and is withholding a part of himself from his spouse. When the latter happens, the second spouse is saying to the first, "I reject that part of you, and I do not accept the whole you," that is, one spouse is rejecting the possible offering of the other spouse of his or her whole self. Now consider: does either one of these scenarios sound like it fosters intimacy (let alone procreation)? Does either one of these scenarios sound like the spouses are being faithful to St Paul's admonition (Ephesians 5:22-25, 28-29)?
"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her...So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church."

I answer that in neither case—whether a spouse freely chooses to withhold a part of himself or herself during intercourse, nor when one rejects a part of the other—is the couple being faithful to this advice, nay, this commandment. For how did Christ love the Church, but that He laid down his life, his body, for her? What are the words He spoke to His friends in instituting the sacrament which is a re-presentation of this sacrifice [7]? "This is my body, which will be given for you" (Luke 22:19).

Moreover, when one spouse insists that the other spouse must artificially become (temporarily) sterile for intercourse to occur, he is insisting on exercising some power over her (or she over him). If exercising such control of myself to deny a part of myself to my spouse is bad, this is worse. In the former case, I am not loving my spouse enough to give my whole self to her; I do not sufficiently love myself or respect my own dignity in this case. But what if I insist that my spouse must severe this part of herself, if I reject this part of her which she may have offered freely to me? If I insist on exercising such control over her fertility, then to that extent I am exercising power over her, too. And this means that I am not loving her as another I, that she is not the subject of my love and contemplation, but rather an object to be used, and thing over which I can exert power and control.

The opposite of love is not hate, as the future Pope John Paul II tells us in his Love and Responsibility; rather, it is use. Thus, by controlling his or her own fertility, a person is using himself or herself, is treating his or her body as a mere appendage to his self, an object to be despised, as the Manichaeans despised all bodily things. And by controlling his or her spouse's fertility, he or she treats his or her spouse's body as a thing to be despised, an object for use. The apostle John tells us that "If anyone says, 'I love God,' but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). Indeed, and if anyone says he loves his spouse for her soul, which he does not see, but hates her body which he does see finds himself in the same position, and worse [8].

Pope Paul VI warned us of all this in Humanae Vitae when he wrote that [emphasis mine]:
"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

Contraception strikes at the purpose of marriage and thus of sex by preventing (or hindering) procreation. It strikes at the intimacy of the act by causing one or both spouses to withhold a part of themselves or reject a part of the other, and causes them to reduce themselves to objects for their own gratification rather than subjects of each others' love. And in so doing, it strikes against the natural order by go against what both sex and marriage are "for." It causes us to lie (that is, to tell untruths) with our bodies by claiming to renew our marriage vows—to be fruitful and faithful to each other, and to do so for the whole of our lives—while at the same time rejecting one or more of those vows [9]. It is moreover a rejection of God within the marriage, since every child conceived is given its life and existence by His will.

Finally, contraception is a failure to live up to the that highest love, that agape which is the "intimate" end of marriage. This is the love of which Dietrich von Hildebrand writes, "He whose heart is filled with such conjugal love for his beloved lives not only with his beloved, but for his beloved." Can we really that we live "for" our spouse (under God, of course) instead of merely living with him or her, if we cannot bring ourselves to offer our whole selves to them, or to make the sacrifice of abstaining from intercourse when we or they are unable to accept (or to make) this offering?

----Footnotes----
[1] Normal course: there is an exception which may be made for victims of rape. In this case, emergency contraception which prevents conception is morally licit. Note that conception means union of egg cell and sperm cell: once this union has been made, a new human life has been conceived, and attempts to prevent pregnancy have failed. Thus, a contraceptive which works by making it impossible for the zygote to attach to the cell walls of the mother does not so much prevent pregnancy as prevent birth, and this by ultimately killing the zygote. This is an abortion, the taking of an innocent human life.

[2] They're morally licit so long as the motive is not in part or in whole the prevention of a pregnancy.

[3] This statistic also ignores such things as actually defective pill, for example the millions of birth control pills recently recalled by Pfizer, because many of the pills sold as contraception were placebos: a problem from which NFP does not suffer. A similar recall of faulty condoms has been recently issued in South Africa: again, this is not something which NFP practicers have to worry about.

[4] I can attest to this personally, though my marriage is still fairly new. On the other hand, I've heard this attestation from others who have been married far longer; perhaps this is a part of why NFP user tend to get divorced at a far smaller rate than the rest of the population, and why marital fidelity tends to be higher among NFP-practicing spouses than amongst the general populace.

[5] In the section title "Consequences of Artificial Birth Control Use," the pope wrote that
"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. "

These at least are prudential reasons to not practice contraception, since in so doing we lose the ability to complain with a straight face when the government suggests a more "enforced" practice of artificial birth control, as (for example) Dr John Holdren, the Obama Administration's Director of Science and Technology Policy, has suggested should be done.

[6] Of course, a society consists of its individual members, so there is a sort of moral weight behind such prudential warnings to society as a whole.

[7] Yes, there is a parallel here. Just as the Eucharist is a "renewal" or re-presentation" of Christ's sacrifice (CCC 1330 and 1382) on the cross, so is sexual intercourse a renewal or re-presentation of the marriage vows.

[8] The soul is, after all, the form of the body, and the body the matter of the soul. As one commentator put it, if Saint Thomas Aquinas—wisest of all theologians—was asked what my soul looked like, he would respond that I need only look in a mirror to see my body, which is the matter of my soul.

[9] It is obvious how we reject the vow to be fruitful, and hopefully from the discussion so far it is also apparent how we fail to be faithful (and thus loving), since we are withholding a part of ourselves. What about the lifelong part? Consider some of the reasoning in contracepting, that if a marriage as a whole is procreative (that is, if at some point children are conceived and born), then it doesn't matter whether each individual act is. This is a lie we tel ourselves, and Pope Paul VI saw right through it. It is analogous to saying that so long as a husband and wife never divorce, therefore his adultery and her cheating don't matter, that they are still faithful to each other.