The proliferation of the so-called “Natural Family Planning Methods” has not prevented the current demographic collapse within the Church. Even if we view with skepticism the surveys that tell us that today approximately 90% of Catholics use contraceptive methods, it is certain that the vast majority of them have far fewer children than their ancestors (or none at all). I do not believe there are many other subjects that deserve more attention than this one.
In the years that followed the publication—in 1968—of the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI, the so-called “method of natural family planning” experienced a proliferation that reached its peak in the 1980s and afterward. Hundreds of books and brochures were circulated everywhere, and dozens of associations (diocesan or otherwise) appeared, along with a multitude of lay people teaching “natural family planning methods.” Of course, over time, timid criticisms were heard, claiming that all this was nothing more than a camouflage for what the Eastern Orthodox mockingly called “Catholic contraception.” However, these criticisms were quickly drowned out by the general fervor. When they came from traditionalist Catholics, they were not even listened to: just as with liturgical matters, they were treated, like the Amish and Mennonites, with contempt. If, however, the criticisms came from the very rare post-conciliar Catholic theologians who strove to be balanced in their interpretations, they were made with such caution that their intended effect was lost.[i]
The actual situation is so bleak that it can no longer be denied: practically, the majority of Catholic families use contraception.
At any rate, today these things no longer matter much. For even if Natural Family Planning has not completely disappeared, the actual situation is so bleak that it can no longer be denied: practically, the majority of Catholic families use contraception. Do not think that I base this statement on surveys such as those of the Pew Research Center, which show that about 90% of married Catholics use contraceptives, and 85% believe the Church should change its moral teachings on such subjects.[ii] In fact, I base it on direct knowledge of Catholic communities in Romania, the United States, Scotland, Italy, Germany, and France, where I have been able to see firsthand the same grim reality of demographic collapse within the Church. If, in countries with tens of millions of Catholics, such as the United States, Brazil, or Poland, the consequences of this situation are, for the moment, less visible, in countries where Catholics are a minority and few in number it has already led to the halving of parishes. The outcome is clear.
What I mean by the above is that the widespread promotion of Natural Family Planning has not, by any means, borne the expected fruit. The reason is simple: if those who used it had not in fact had a contraceptive mentality, then they would have had on average at least 4–5 children. Which is not the case: most married Catholics in the period 1980–2000 did not even have 3. Moreover, conditions of material well-being far superior to those of Medieval or Renaissance Christians do not, in most cases, justify any kind of “spacing of births.” I am more and more inclined to believe that the Eastern Orthodox are right: generally speaking, natural family planning was nothing more than another way in which moral liberalism freely perpetuated the contraceptive mentality. Lest I be misunderstood or suspected of ultra-rigorism, I hasten to clarify that I do not deny the acceptability—in grave situations (war, serious illness, living conditions on the edge of destitution)—of observing and making use of the biological rhythms of the female cycle. I am also certain that there have been, and still are, Catholics of good faith who have used natural family planning with moderation. But I hasten to emphasize that, normally, the situations that justify its use are rare. Very rare. In other words, I believe that, in light of the exceptional conditions from which they now benefit, most Catholics should have families as numerous as those of their ancestors. And if reality blatantly denies this, the reason is the enormous eclipse that afflicts the modern world. Not an eclipse of the sun, but an eclipse of faith and of trust in God and in His Holy Providence. And this is not only ignored, but even sustained—perhaps unconsciously—by the promotion of “methods” of natural “planning.” As I suggested in the very title of my essay, there is something profoundly wrong with this formula.
First of all, the idea of “planning.” So it is the spouses who decide and plan. Where, then, is there room for Divine Providence?
Has it not, implicitly, already been sidelined? By their planning, do the spouses not in fact say to God: “We know better, we can manage on our own”? Another question: is not planning, at bottom, one of the idols of modern man and of his science? Do we not plan everything for decades ahead? I think no one can deny that this is so. Let us go further. The idea of planning is accompanied, as we see in manuals and brochures of this kind, by another notion just as inappropriate when speaking of love: that of “method.” As you probably know, the essence of this literature consists in presenting “methods of natural family planning.”
I ask: can we really apply to the intimate love of spouses the idea of method? Honestly, how does that sound to you? “We love each other with method.” It sounds as though, instead of being in bed, the spouses were in the garage fixing a car—with the necessary discipline and methods. Perhaps the garage is not the best example. Then the classroom: the spouses solving together—with method, of course—differential equations in an advanced mathematics course. Or even a basic one: Horner’s method is not that difficult. Whatever. In the end, what normal person can associate the notion of “method” with that of love? Imagine a wife saying to her husband, “enflamed” by her feminine charms: “Don’t forget! The method!” Without being an advocate of the wild passionate love from some modern movies, I still believe that, apart from hatred, nothing is more alien to the intimate love between spouses than “method.” And I am not finished yet.
Let’s consider, once again, the expression of “Natural Family Planning.” So, this whole thing is “natural.” Is it really so? Does it seem natural to you that two young spouses, in the ardor of their first love (that of the early years of marriage), should abstain—with “method”—from having children? I have known enough couples who tried this; not one has ever told me of the “naturalness” of such an abnormal lifestyle. Especially since, when there are no truly grave reasons that could determine such a decision, everything becomes torment. First of all for men: in today’s eroticized world, not taking into account the fact that marriage is also remedium concupiscentiae is, most often, fatal. For remember this: for a celibate with strong Christian values, it is easier to respect chastity and purity than for a married man with strong Christian values. I am not saying that the first has no temptations! Sometimes even terrible ones. But still, the sexually active married man is far more prone to sexual falls. This is a reality any confessor can confirm for you (I myself was made aware of this by a priest I confessed to years ago). So if the couple “naturally” suppresses their natural tendency toward an intimate life proportionate to their hormonal levels and temperaments, how can we still speak of “natural family planning”? Is it truly natural to suppress what is natural? Do not misunderstand me: I recommend to any Christian couple to fulfill, for example during Lent, that abstinence recommended by Saint Paul the Apostle to spouses (1 Corinthians 5: 1-9). But let us also be very attentive to whether spouses (I admit, I am especially thinking of men) can or cannot do this. And the Apostle Paul wisely insists that abstinence must be practiced in moderation, only by mutual consent, and for limited periods:
“Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency” (1 Corinthians 7: 5).
So it is clear that a biblical text such as the one above supports the practice of abstinence by Christian spouses. But, as is explicitly affirmed, the motive is strictly spiritual: fasting and prayer. It is also clear that it is not about a “lifestyle” aimed at avoiding the conception and birth of children, but only about limited periods such as Lent. Thus any use of such a passage as justification for avoiding procreation would be a gross manipulation of the text.
All those who follow such “methods” and values with the goal of avoiding procreation will simply disappear: for contraception has never been anything but a form of mass suicide for those who adopted it.
And to conclude—at least for now—the discussion, I will express one of my greatest perplexities: how is it that no one has asked why, for 2000 years, we have not heard of such “methods of natural family planning” in Christian life? Have you read about such things in the writings of great apostles of the laity such as Saints John Chrysostom, Francis de Sales, John Vianney, and Padre Pio? I, for one, have not. Again we find ourselves in the realm of unnatural developments: if Pope Pius XI said something, discreetly and delicately, about the permissibility of observing biological rhythms in Casti Conubii (1930), this certainly was not intended to give rise to such an “industry” which, I believe, is indeed contraceptive (but not Catholic, as the Eastern “Orthodox” consider it).
At any rate, all those people and communities who followed such “methods” and values with the goal of avoiding procreation will simply disappear: for contraception has never been anything but a form of mass suicide for those who adopted it. Those who, when they believe not only that they have nothing to transmit to their descendants, but also that their descendants have no right to exist, no longer have any reason to perpetuate themselves. And yet, the question raised by Phil Lawler through the title of a recent article of his, “Our civilization’s death wish,”[iii] remains the most pressing challenge: what has generated such a moral, cultural, and civilizational catastrophe of the once-Christian world? Without a correct and complete diagnostic answer to this question, no fruitful solution can be proposed.
[i] As expected, such examples of non-traditional Catholic authors who adhere to strictly limited interpretations regarding the situations in which Natural Family Planning is permitted are very few. One of them is Kevin E. Miller, from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, as can be seen in his article in Linacre Quarterly (2012, November 1;79/4: 393–408), “How to Talk about the use and Abuse of Natural Family Planning the Importance of Accuracy in Translation and in Description:” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6027093/ [Accessed: 20 August 2025].
[ii] Here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/04/30/most-us-catholics-say-they-want-the-church-to-be-more-inclusive/ [Accessed: 13 August 2025].
[iii] Here: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/our-civilizations-death-wish/ [Accessed: 21 August 2025].
