FIRST, let it be clear that the Church favors "family planning," understood as the mutual agreement of spouses in generosity and love to decide on the number of children they can properly have and raise and the space between births.
Second, the Church does not oppose artificial contraception, not because it is artificial, but because there is so much that is artificial that is beneficial: artificial hearts have saved numerous lives, artificial heart-lung machines are indispensable in open heart surgeries, and the dialysis machine, so commonplace today, is one artificial kidney. But all these artificial devices save lives or improve them. It is not so with artificial reproduction. What happens in artificial reproduction is that a person manipulates his partner or himself — by the use of an artificial device (condom, diaphragm, spermicidal jelly, intra-uterine device, injectable contraceptives, tubal ligation, vasectomy) in order to be able to have sex without the danger of conception. In other words, it is manipulation purely for one's own purposes. It is this same manipulative inclination with which the Church has issues everywhere and every time there is manipulation — whether it be the manipulation of others or the manipulation of one's power and position, or the manipulation of news or of information. What is condemnable in all this is the selfishness that grounds manipulation.
Third, bodily processes and functions have a "what-for" — a telos, an end. And the normal, natural end of the conjugal act between married spouses is procreation. Nature has ordained it to be so. Once more, this is not an argument from "naturalism." Cancer cells, by nature, multiply, but while these kill, procreation gives life. Artificial contraception calculatedly frustrates this end. Couples in their old age will no longer procreate, but the design to frustrate the teleology — the what-for-ness of the sexual act is not present in them as it is in artificial contraception. It is as perverse as starting to speak and at the same time smothering one's speech or inducing another to speak and then gagging him so that what you induced him to say may not be heard.
When, then, should "natural family planning" be licit? The difference lies in the fact that the couple unites itself with the rhythms of fertility and infertility so that there is no manipulation of another person for one's purposes. What there is, in fact, is a decision to abide by the rhythms provided by nature. And it should not be forgotten that even if the means used are natural if the couple makes a decision absolutely to avoid children, the Church would still find this objectionable.
Finally, in the light of sensitivity to the concrete situations of couples, there are difficult cases to which abstract moral principles may not easily apply. It is then that discernment in the integrity of a well-informed conscience and honesty before God, in an atmosphere of prayer and openness to counsel by the ministers of the Church or by mature Catholic lay couples, may arrive at conclusions that allow persons to cope with challenges in their married life without violating God's laws and the teachings of the Church. At one time, for example, it was held by moral theologians that religious sisters in war-torn areas where the risk of being raped was very high were morally justified in taking the pill to prevent pregnancies. But the exceptions should never be the rule.
Developments have shown how prophetic Paul VI was, notwithstanding the bashing he got at the time he taught Humanae Vitae. Countries that have been so successful at contraception now face the specter of an aging population with none to take care of their elderly, relying, as they must, on overseas workers who populate their countries and take over their populations.
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@outlook.com