A reader writes:
Some NFP manuals say that it is only
morally permissible to use NFP under the condition that the use of
periodic abstinence does not present the spouses with a serious
temptation to impurity of any kind.Imagine the following scenario: the wife has some sort of condition
such that a pregnancy will severely endanger her health or life.
However, the husband thinks that periodic abstinence will present him
with temptations to impurity that he will not be able to resist.
Therefore, he concludes that he has a moral obligation not to use
NFP, and so he insists on the "marriage right," against the wishes of
his wife.He does this to avoid the sin of impurity. But certainly it is a sin
for him to insist on relations against her will, in two ways: first,
it’s the sin of lust (treating his spouse as an object by insisting on
sex against her will); and second, it’s the sin of endangering his
wife against her will.Obviously it is morally wrong to sin in these ways, even in order to
avoid the sin of impurity. There can be no moral obligation to sin.So my question is: is it official Catholic teaching that it is wrong
to use periodic abstinence if it presents a serious danger of
temptation to impurity?
I don’t know if this is a real situation or not (the reader says "Imagine the following scenario"), but I hope it is only theoretical.
To answer the question, it is not official Catholic teaching that it is always wrong to use periodic abstinence if it presents a serious danger of temptation to impurity.
The statements of the kind being encountered in NFP manuals are pastoral exhortations intended to address the situation of people who are inclined to use NFP without sufficient reason. For example, some couples just coming off of contraception might have the idea that they can just sub in NFP without recognizing the human realities of periodic continence. One partner, for whom periodic continence does not pose a challenge to purity, might then be insensitive to the needs of the other. By encouraging the partners to face the issue of whether periodic continence will pose a challenge to chastity, the partners are encouraged not only to be sensitive to each other’s needs but also to weigh the question of whether periodic continence is really justified in their circumstances or whether their situation is such that they should go ahead and have relations during a time when the act may be capable of producing new life.
Such pastoral exhortations need to be phrased carefully, however, because while it is true that one should not use periodic continence if there is a serious danger to chastity all things being equal, all things are not always equal, as in the scenario the reader describes.
I’m not sure that I agree with everything in the reader’s analysis of the scenario. For example, I wouldn’t be quick to say that "the sin of lust" is being committed. Lust is a vice–something that inclines toward sin (specifically, it’s disordered desire for sexual pleasure)–but it’s not sin itself. Lust may be a contributing factor to the situation (as may an innocently-held but misguided notion that one can never use NFP if it poses a risk of impurity), but I’d be more inclined to point out as a problem the insisting of conjugal relations without adequate regard for the wife’s physical condition and her legitimate wish to protect it.
What the husband risks doing in the scenario is the flipside of what the pastoral exhortations are meant to prevent: Being insensitive to the danger that the use or non-use of periodic continence may create.
In the scenario the reader describes, the use of periodic continence places the husband in spiritual danger (of impurity) and the failure to use periodic continence places the wife in physical danger (per the scenario, "a pregnancy will severely endanger her health or life").
At this point some could be tempted to say that spiritual dangers are incommensurate with physical ones (mortal sin–i.e., spiritual death–is worse than physical death), and so the danger to the husband in this case trumps the danger to the wife, but to immediately conclude this would be too facile.
For a start, would putting the wife in a situation where she might be in danger of her life possibly cause her to be in danger of some kind of mortal sin (e.g., misuse of the will based on anger toward her husband, or a desire to secretly use contraception, or even a desire for an abortion or miscarriage)? One can’t just look at the spiritual effects of the decision on the husband without looking at the spiritual repercussions for the wife.
More fundamentally, the "spiritual danger trumps physical danger" solution would seem to proceed from an attitude that says temptation must be avoided at all costs, and–whatever may be said for this attitude–it does not seem to be God’s.
God could effortlessly remove all temptation from the world (I say effortlessly because, as an infinite being, he has infinite resources and thus everything is equally easy to him; he does not strain or diminish his resources by doing one thing rather than another), yet he does not.
Why this is is partly a mystery, but it seems that in God’s mind there is a value to allowing us to struggle with temptation and, by his grace, grow in the spiritual life and cultivate virtue and, in the end, overcome temptation and the vices that incline us toward it.
This has implications for the way we conduct our own lives. It is not within our power to avoid all temptation, and the attempt to do so is inconsistent with living in modo humano ("in a human manner"), which moral theology holds that we are called to do. At some point, attempts to avoid temptation become counterproductive. Imagine, for example, the case of a person who attempts to avoid even the mere sight of a member of the opposite sex, lest temptation arise. Such a person is more likely to foster temptation than diminish it, since the mere sight of the opposite sex would have such an aura of forbiddenness and would induce such anxiety that the person would constantly be obsessing about the matter and stirring up temptations that otherwise wouldn’t be there.
In dealing with temptation, what we are called to is not absolute risk avoidance but rational risk avoidance as part of overall risk management. The absolute avoidance of temptation is impossible for us in this life and the attempt to achieve it will be counterproductive. What we must do is take rational measures to manage the temptations we are subject to and thus minimize the chance of falling into sin.
What measures are rational depend on a variety of factors that vary by individual and by what state the individual is in at present. It also includes factors like what effects our temptation avoidance measures will have on others.
In the scenario described by the reader, the two parties need to be as prayerful and open to each other’s situations as possible and arrive at an overall assessment of the proper approach for them to take as a couple, taking into account both the risks that the wife is subject to and the risks that the husband is subject to. Neither automatically trumps the other, and thus neither party should start with the assumption that their risks should automatically govern the situation.
Both should be asking questions like "Just how much physical risk would a pregnancy entail?" "Just how much temptation would I actually be subject to?" "What would the effects be if I insist on my way in this situation?" "What does common sense say?" "Is there some other way that we haven’t thought of–within the bounds of Church teaching–that the risks to me and my spouse could be managed?" and especially, "What would be the most loving thing to do?"
