Natural Family Planning International

This is the seventh installment of my commentary on The Human Body: a sign of dignity and a gift by Fr. Richard M. Hogan. For publication details, see the blog for September 9, 2007.

In his treatment of sexual sterilization and subsequent contraceptively sterilized intercourse, Fr. Richard Hogan makes a four-sentence parenthetical statement that, in my opinion, undermines his entire treatment of contraception and sterilization. In my blog published on October 14, I explained why I think he errs in his treatment of the requirement for the sterilized person to undergo reversal surgery. I showed that there is a long standing theological and common sense tradition requiring reversal surgery under the appropriate conditions.

Father Hogan then continues: “Having confessed the sin and received absolution, a sterilized person can truly love his or her spouse in and through the body because he or she can intend to give himself or herself totally to the spouse.” That raises several questions. First of all, why does he speak of “the sin” and not all the sins of contraceptively sterilized intercourse? There was one sin of mutilation, but there were presumably many sins of contraceptive behavior.

Second, what do confession and absolution have to do with future behavior? In confession, you confess sins you have already committed. You do not get permission to commit the same sins in the future. In the traditional act of contrition, you pledge to “amend my life.” What does that mean except to change the behavior that you are now confessing? So how can a priest “give permission” to continue to engage in contraceptively sterilized intercourse? How can you give yourself such “permission” if you are truly repentant?

What is so terribly disappointing in such a treatment today, no matter how common it has been for the past 30 to 40 years, is that it contradicts one of the basic purposes of the papal Theology of the Body, namely, to take the body seriously. In his General Audience talk of July 11, 1984, Pope John Paul II spoke about the need to respect the “fundamental structure” of the marriage act. In his talk about a month later, August 8, he noted that no matter what the reasons for contraceptive behavior, “this does not change the moral character which is based on the very structure of the conjugal act as such” (italics in original).

In his next two talks (August 22 and the next week), the Pope spoke about the need for self-mastery. “Man is precisely a person because he is master of himself and has self-control. Indeed, insofar as he is master of himself he can give himself to the other” (August 22, emphasis added). Continuing to have contraceptively sterilized intercourse during the fertile time makes a mockery of that idea.

The reality is that when a person sterilizes herself or himself, she or he does not merely tinker with a bodily organ. The whole gist of reality and of the Theology of the Body, as I understand it, is that the person has sterilized her self or his self. Father Hogan attempts to get around that by teaching that after confession the sterilized person’s acts of contraceptively sterilized intercourse during the fertile time are acts of true marital love “because he or she can intend to give himself or herself totally to the spouse” (emphasis added). Not at all, no more than a person using condoms can intend to give himself or herself totally to the spouse. One can imagine similar intentions by those committing adultery, fornication, and other sins. To adapt the old saying, “hell is paved with wishful intentions.” What the Pope said above about the moral character of the act being based on the structure of the conjugal act holds true. The idea of the Theology of the Body is to put a stop to this “mind-over-matter” dualism in moral theology. What counts first of all is the thing that is actually being done.

What should be done? In my opinion, the sterilized person should undergo reversal surgery as well as undergoing a change of heart. Then the couple should practice systematic NFP. The couple should monitor the wife’s fertility, and they should abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time if they believe they should not become pregnant. They may engage in the marriage act during the time of natural infertility.

What if reversal surgery constitutes a truly extraordinary burden for health or financial reasons? Are such couples morally required to abstain from the marriage act until they are naturally infertile by reason of menopause? In my opinion, no. I believe that the couple should do just as they would if they had undergone the reversal—practice systematic NFP. They should monitor the wife’s fertility and abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time just as they would if they were seeking to avoid pregnancy, and they should not practice shortcut interpretations of her infertility. On the other hand, in my opinion, the repentant sterilized couple for whom reversal surgery is morally impossible may morally engage in the marriage act during the naturally infertile time of the cycle. My reasoning is that the marriage act of the sterilized couple during the infertile time is not contraceptively sterilized during the infertile time of the cycle because of her natural infertility at such times. It is my opinion that at such times her natural infertility pre-empts or overrides the contraceptive effect of the sterilization.

Requiring such abstinence is not an undue burden. Such abstinence is the normal moral requirement for all couples who seriously seek to avoid pregnancy beyond the normal postpartum infertility of breastfeeding. (This obviously does not include couples who decide not to do anything to avoid pregnancy.) It requires that self-mastery which is part of being truly human. Yes, to quote the Pope again, “Man is precisely a person because he is master of himself and has self-control.” If a person thinks that the papal theology of the body is truly instructive, how can he fail to reaffirm this and apply it to persons who have sexually sterilized themselves? Indeed, is not the overriding reason why couples reject systematic NFP and choose sterilization their desire to avoid not just children but especially to avoid periodic abstinence and the self-mastery that it requires?

I do not understand how there can be any widespread authentic renewal in the Church without a renewed moral theology that totally rejects the idea that good intentions can somehow change the morality of an action that is by its nature intrinsically dishonest, to use the terminology of Humanae Vitae. That’s mind-over-matter dualism. It may be responsible for almost as much harm as the open dissent.

I understand that my position challenges other positions. In Sex and the Marriage Covenant, I devote the entirety of Chapter 12, “The Sterilized Couple,” to these issues and respond to the questions that have been raised. For what it’s worth, the priest who read my text as part of the canonical review process called my opinions as expressed in the book not only “probable” but even “probabilior,” that is, more probable. He did not specifically identify this issue, but it is only in this chapter that I differ significantly from other opinions currently accepted as probable.

Next week: The formation of a correct conscience.

John F. Kippley

Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius, 2005)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, readable, and free e-book available for downloading at www.NFPandmore.org.