NFP and Contraception

The Catholic church permits the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP) to prevent conception.  Given the Church’s teaching on contraception, can this avowed permissibility of NFP be maintained consistently? 

This post is a collection of excerpts from Pruss that I’ve rephrased mixed with a few of my own comments.

If periodic abstinence is permissible, then it seems that periodic abstinence on fertile days (NFP) is as well.  But NFP seems to be done with the intention that conception not happen - and isn’t this what makes other forms of contraception wrong?

As a response, first note that in using NFP, one does not do anything to render that particular sexual act sterile.  The act would have been as it was with or without the intention - the couple does not contribute anything to that particular act to make it infertile.  

One may think that by ‘moving the act’ to an infertile period one has rendered the act infertile - but one cannot move an act; instead, they engaged in another act altogether. 

The sexual act in positive contraception is infertile because they couple has made it so.  But in NFP, the act is infertile just because that is what acts at that point in the cycle are like.  

Here’s an extended analogy to help with the case:  There are two chess players, Gertrude and Matthew, who do not want to win their next match - perhaps they’re afraid they’d become too haughty if they win.  They use different methods to ensure defeat.  Gertrude will only play a grandmaster, ensuring her defeat.  Matthew will play anyone, but takes drugs to cloud his mind, ensuring defeat.  

Why did Gertrude lose?  Because her opponent was a great player.

Why did Matthew lose?  Because he drugged himself.  

Matthew was not really trying to beat his opponent.  But we can assume that Gertrude really was trying, and strove as hard as possible, to beat her opponent.  Matthew negatively impacted his striving.  Gertrude did not negatively impact hers.  Similarly, the contraceptive couple is positively opposing their reproductive striving.  The NFP couple is not engaged in such opposition. 

Gertrude did something to negatively impact the goal of winning, but she did not do anything to negatively impact her striving.

Couples that engage in direct contraception are deceiving themselves, for they intend to unite physically yet oppose that unity by contraception. Their thus acting against erotic love, which is wrong.  

This does not mean that a couple needs to explicitly intend reproduction.  There’s another option besides intending to reproduce and intending to not reproduce:  One can just remain uncommitted either way - and this is what a couple does, or should be doing, that engages in NFP. And if one chooses this non-commitment, then they are not directly acting against erotic love.  This is the same reason that there’s nothing wrong with abstinence, for one is not acting against erotic love in abstaining from sex, but is remaining silent on it.  A short analogy will help:  There’s a difference between telling the truth, lying, and silence.  Lying is always wrong.  Telling the truth is good.  But there’s nothing wrong with silence, ceteris paribus.  Silence is and abstinence are neutral acts that are neutral with regard to reality, while contraception and lying are contrary to it.