Sorry for the delayed response. Crazy weekend. Anyways
“Regulating birth” and “contraception” is a distinction without a difference.
Actually there is quite a difference. It’s the difference between ends and means. Regulating birth is the goal, contraception is the means. And you know as well as I do that not all means are equivalent, even if they have the same goal in mind.
NFP is one of the most effective methods of " a technique for preventing pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse".
No, not quite. It’s one of the most effective means of achieving or avoiding pregnancy. But it’s no way, shape, or form a technique for
preventing a pregnancy as a result of sex, as the definition of contraception I gave said. Precisely because there’s no sex going on to
prevent any pregnancy resulting from it.
All NFP is is information. If a couple decides they are not in good shape financially, physically, or emotionally to have a child, then they abstain. There’s no thwarting of the sexual act going on like there is in contraception, because there is no act to thwart.
If I use NFP to have lots of sex without having to worry about a herd of little ankle biters running around my house, or I use a condom to have lots of sex without having to worry about a herd of little ankle biters, why is that a genuine difference with one being acceptable and one not acceptable? The intention is the same.
Again, the difference is in the means. And this not a minor difference. That would be like saying if I work two jobs to earn enough money to pay off my mortgage, or I rob a bank, why is that a genuine difference with one being acceptable and one not? The intention is the same in both situations, I need money to pay off my loan. Clearly, intention and goal being the same aren’t enough to make two actions morally equivalent.
I respect folks that are honestly against all contraception, without loopholes and escape hatches. Most of the folks I know that are against contraception are evangelical Protestant Christians.
I do too. I think it’s awesome, and if God has given them the means to have twenty plus kids, then good for them.
I think it’s unfair to characterize NFP users as being dishonest and just exploiting a loophole though. Because that would mean that all sex on infertile days are illicit, even if you’re not consciously avoiding children. Or that elderly couples past child-bearing age are exploiting a loophole. It’s not a loophole to not have sex on fertile days, because it’s simply cooperation with God’s design, not interference like contraception is. God’s the one who designed the woman’s fertility cycle to have ebbs and flows, not us, so it can’t be loophole to use them. If he intended every act to result in pregnancy, he would have designed the woman to be fertile 24/7.
Here’s the key that helped me see why the Church isn’t being inconsistent in condemning contraception but condoning NFP. It’s from John Paul’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio:
*When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, **separate these two meanings ***[the unitive and procreative] that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other.
…When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility,
the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.
See, a lot of people, myself included before I read this, think the reason the Church opposes contraception is because it stops a baby from coming into existence. That’s part of it, but it’s not the main reason. Otherwise, like I said, then sex on any infertile day, which is 3/4 of the month, would be sinful. And yeah, in that case, it doesn’t make sense to allow NFP because it too avoids conceiving children. It does seem like a loophole.
But in fact, the main reason the Church does is because contraception separates and puts a barrier (literally, in the case of a condom) between the connection of sex and procreation. It takes sex out of it’s proper context. It says sex isn’t intrinsically linked to children, but is solely for adult pleasure and fulfillment. Any children that result are secondary to that. All you have to do is look in any magazine at a beauty salon to see that’s exactly how we look at sex. That is the problem with contraception. That’s why it’s wrong.
NFP by definition recognizes and respects that inseparable connection, as JPII describes it. It’s foundational to it. If you can’t have a baby, then don’t do the act which brings babies into existence. And it’s for that reason the Church permits NFP. Not as a loophole, but respecting God’s design.
Uhhh sorry…what now? Yes it does. The Church isn’t against all forms of regulating birth, that’s true, but that’s not the same thing as contraception.