Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy at the University of St. Jerome's, Ontario, Canada, has taught the philosophy behind NFP for several years. In a recent article in International Review of Natural Family Planning, Dr. DeMarco says that he's always being asked by students, "What is the moral difference between abstaining from sex and using contraception? The intention and the end are identical in both instances - the avoidance of pregnancy."

When he responded by pointing out that "abstinence does not interfere with the reproductive system in any way, whereas contraception does", students would yawn. When he tried "periodic abstinence respects bodily integrity of the married couple, whereas contraception does not", students would accuse him of splitting hairs.

One day, a your woman with "dark and intent eyes" asked him, quite seriously, to explain once again the distinction. Inspired by a genuine question, and idea sprang into his mind.

He relates, "I started with an analogy. Let us say that you and your fiance are making up a wedding invitation list. There are certain acquaintances of yours that you are not going to invite (obviously you cannot invite everyone you know). There are two things you can do. The first is the traditional approach: simply do not send these people invitations. The second approach is not at all conventional but would nonetheless achieve the same effect: send out notices telling them not to come, that their presence at the wedding is undesired."

"Now, put yourself in the shoes of an acquaintence who receives a note telling her not to come to the wedding:"Dear Jan Doe, Tom and I are getting married next month and we want you to know that you are not invited to the wedding. We don't want you, so please don't come." Would you feel differently receiving such a note as opposed to simply not receiving an invitation?

"My student acknowledged that apart from its unusualness, she would indeed feel differently in getting a "disinvitation." In fact, as she admitted, she would feel insulted, whereas not getting an invitation would leave her, at the most, only disappointed. She also agreed that one would have to be pretty dense not to see an important moral and psychological difference between these two techniques for achieving the same end..."

"To tie the analogy in with NFP and contraception, I suggested the NFP couple that does not want a child just then, simply does not send out an invitation for a child; that is, they refrain from sexual intercourse, which is an act whose very nature is ordinated to the invitation or invocation of new life. The contracepting couple, on the other hand, by using a contraceptive is sending the message that a new life is undesired."

"My student paused for a moment, looked up at me and said with a straightforward, emotionless countenance: "You're right." I was stunned, but recovered soon enough to be pleased by her response. Yet, I had not completed the analogy."

"Now, enlisting the power of your imagination, put yourself in the position of the Creator. The abstaining couple who is practicing NFP is acting in such a way that they are not calling upon God's creative act at that time. We cannot imagine God being insulted or dishonored here. The couple is simply not performing an action whose nature is ordained to elicit God's creative act. God is still present, still respected, but no invitation is sent to Him that would invoke His presence in the specific form of His being a Creator of new life. Contrariwise, the contracepting couple, by using contraception, is sending an explicit message to God that His creative presence is not desired. Because He receives a "disinvitation" in the form of a contraceptive signal, we might easily imagine that He would be insulted."

Please click here to visit the external link.