Birth Control

[kbachler]

Do Catholic couples have a schedule they must follow in having sex? No?

Never argued that they did.

Then what “timing” is changed? If any particular day my husband and I choose to not have sex, whether for NFP reasons or any other reasons, I’m not changing the act, the act is not occuring and since there is no rule that says I must have sex on a particular day, there is really no “change” in the timing of sex. There is also no rule to the frequency of sex. The entire cycle of a woman is open to the act or open to not have the act. Choosing to have or not have sex does not change the act of sex. Knowing your fertility does not change the act of sex (for instance, those people who are naturally infertile).

If you choose not to, because you are fertile, and wish to avoid pregnancy, you are changing the act.

If you choose to, because you are infertile and it is an opportune time because you wish to avoid pregnancy, you are changing the act.

In EITHER case, just as assuredly as whether you decided to use an ABC barrier or not.

This is the problem with following rules, as oppossed to undestanding.

If a couple decides "We don’t desire children at this time, therefore we will allow ourselves the marital act ONLY at certain times during which the femaleis infertile (based on NFP info), then they have the same intent, and have made exactly the same choice as someone choosing a barrier. They have changed the act by changing its frequency and timing.

To argue otherwise simply isn’t reasonable. It’s getting caught up in rules, rather than understanding them.

If you find money, and the law says “finders keepers” but you hear who it belonged to, the RULE says you can keep it. What does UNDERSTANDING morality tell you?

 

[kbachler]

1. First I will answer your question and explain what I meant. Vico wrote:
   
   *Optimization is not the basis for use or non-use of birth control. Only if birth control is justified and moral for a given couple, does the question of what type of birth control is valid arise. (See 1) *
   ​

​

Thank you for the explanation, but we’ve never argued for optimization. This entire point seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

1. The term artificial is irrelevant to what I have stated other than to identify the methods included. I am using a common term for recognition not to make an argument.

For ABC, I wrote: “The ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes …” and gave the examples so it would be clear what I meant.

Now you have taken it to mean something other than what I intendeed beyond the examples I gave. Abstinance is not a disorder of the physical constitution. By physical process I mean the objective reproductive cycle of the female, in these examples, so abstinance does not disorder the reproductive cycle of the female, there is simply no fertilization.

I understand your argument. I explained that your argument is incorrect and factually wrong.

First, the ACT contains processes OTHER THAN fertilization and developing a preganancy, which you are ignoring. Abstinance IS a disorder of the physical constitution. Those are spelled out in more detail in this thread, so for the time being I won’t repeat them again.

Second, the Act involves more than just a female.

From scripture we know that marital abstinance is acceptable sometimes when we do not defraud one another, and we also have the serious motives that can exempt husband and wife from the positive debt of bonum prolis.

The conclusion about what I stated, that you give, is shown to be based on incorrect information, and is therefore not valid based on the argument you present.

Abstinence can be fine. We agree. But the natural argument with respect to abstinence as you’ve stated it is incorrect.

Moreover, the use of NFP (which is what is being discussed - comparing NFP to ABC, please read the thread) in order to time abstinence for periods when the female is fertile and the act for periods when she is not holds the same or comparable intent, result, and disorders the physical constitution or physical processes for the COUPLE (it takes two!) as ABC.

Based on the arguments provided so far in this thread, one cannot logically conclude that NFP is “moral” and that ABC is not, or that ABC is immoral and that NFP is not (leaving aside for discussion purposes forms of ABC that may be abortive in nature.)​

 

[kbachler]

Analogies only go far…you can take any minute detail to a place it doesn’t belong to try to destroy the analogy.

The "skateboard " in the church is a non-issue. The issue is an act of desecration or irreverance. A priest would NOT do an act of desecration or irreverance in a church, as a prop for a homily.

I agree.

Which descrates the marital act more? Restricting when a couple may participate in the the act (in order to avoid pregnancy) or using a barrier (in order to avoid pregnancy)?

 

[jilly4ski]

Medicine shows that the marital act provides hormones & chemicals to the brain (& other areas of the body) which are important for bonding, intimacy, & general health. Therefore, the lack of sex can harm bonding, intimacy, & general health. Consequently, a lack of the act may be sinful even if the intent was good (the misuse of tool argumnt above.)

One could argue that ABC, allowing the medically unitive benefits of the act, is less sinful than NFP.

The medical benefits argument is a little specious don’t you think. How often must one engage in the marital act for people to incur the benefits? What about single people, should they engage in immoral behavior to get the “medical benefits”? What about those that must abstain, after childbirth, due to sickness, or even impotence, are they being sinful. Obviously medical benefits of sex (which is not necessary to life has to be balanced against the couples other health concerns whether physical, mental, relationship.

I disagree. It is an affirmative action. Couples decide & then act to limit/shift the timing for the act from the woman’s fertile times to not fertile times. This is more than an intent. Even so, sometimes intent would be sufficient anyway (lust in the heart = adultery)

Wait, you go from saying that not having sex could be sinful (which is actually correct but not the way you have stated) to saying that having sex in those same circumstances is immoral. I am tempted to agree with your last sentence, but I cannot. The intent to have marital relations without children, (I can sort of agree with this can be sinful) but there need to be limits on it. As infertile couples, couples who are pregnant, all get to enjoy the marital act without having children (generally), but we cannot say that their intent is always immoral.

There are always times that we do not have the marital act, so yes there is a barrier to it a great deal of the time. But I am not making this point about ALL such barriers,* I am making the point about the barriers that were created due to knowledge provided by NFP, shifting unbarriered Acts to barriered ones.*

So there is a difference in knowing that you are sick and deciding not to engage in the marital act and knowing if you are infertile and deciding to engage in the marital act? I guess the reason I am skeptical of your argument, is that even without NFP many women know when they are generally fertile or not. But lets say a couple decides they want to get pregnant but on the advice of a doctor abstain every other day to increase their chances of conceive is their abstinence immoral? I would assume that you would say of course not, because their intent is not to avoid children. But the only difference in this couples abstinence and a couple who is avoiding conception is intent. Knowledge does not in itself change acts or intentions. Some NFP users have the knowledge but don’t time their relations around fertility.

Likewise, if a man wore a condom to protect a cut while swimming, one would not argue that this is ABC? It only becomes ABC when additional conditions are met.

Obviously these are not ABC, because as the church says we have to look at each individual sexual encounter. Using devices outside of the marital act can not be ABC.

I’m not making the argument about ALL time barriers I am making it ONLY about those caused by NFP - just as one would make the argument about contraceptive devices ACTUALLY USED for contraception, and not for some other legitimate purpose.

Please explain how time barriers differ in kind. What makes deciding to abstain because you are sick, and deciding to abstain because you don’t want children is different?

Because God created a marital act that has physical purpose beyond procreation. It provides for important hormonal releases that not only provide pleasure, but also intimacy and bonding. This is an important part of the Act, medically verified. To abstain from the Act as a married couple, particularly one in need of such bonding, is therefore arguably a sin. But this is something that is entirely possible under NFP. Hence, there is an issue.

Yet St. Paul teaches that couples can mutually agree to abstain for a short time and prayer.

In the extreme, yes. And in the extreme its true - but silly. This is the point I made that we are really focused on the point ONLY when it is the result of NFP, just as we are focused on ABC devices only actually used for family planning.

So complete abstinence would be sinful, because it is 100% effective as a family planning tool, even for greater goods like the wife cannot get pregnant and ABC is still an unacceptable risk to health?

If they are always infertile, there was no choice to be fertile, right? If the choice was to have sex ONLY during a woman’s infertile time - then I think the argument is valid. It is a significant part of the argument I am making.

Neither do couples have a choice to be fertile during the woman’s infertile time. Their is never a choice to be fertile, And there is only a choice to be infertile with ABC and sterilization.

I think it could be. (Not in the mood, night after night…)

This is a sin because you would be unjustly denying ones spouse the marital debt. NFP must be mutually agreed upon.

For example - would you argue against tornado shelters because they violate natural laws? Or seatbelts? They violate natural laws. In fact,even using a car probably violates a natural law (just walk.) Or should we give up pennicillin because it violates natural laws?

 

[jilly4ski]

Originally Posted by kbachler View Post
Yes. I’ve taught them in college. Generally, natural law arguments have been shown to be an invalid form of arguing. They don’t work.

For example - would you argue against tornado shelters because they violate natural laws? Or seatbelts? They violate natural laws. In fact,even using a car probably violates a natural law (just walk.) Or should we give up pennicillin because it violates natural laws?

What of the counter argument? Did God not create us? Did He not give us a brain and hands? Is not the us of our brain and hands therefore within natural law? And so, isn’t creating (and using) a tornado shelter, a car, or a seatbelt, or ABC, within natural law?

I admit its been awhile since I read Aristotle (The Categories, Posterior Analytics, etc.) or Summa Theologica. The arguments were brilliant when made and they advanced philosophy a great deal, but have been superseded.

umm the examples you used are not valid natural law argument.
God created us, and in order for us to procreate gave us the marital act. Thus sex and babies are connected. Aberrations like an infertile person, do not change the fact that sex and babies are connected. Thus, if you don’t want babies you do not have sex. Of course marital relations are also good, so God gave women a fertility cycle, so that we could know when we are or not fertile, thus still preserving the marital union if for some reason having a child at that time was unwise. Thus with NFP, you don’t have sex whenever you want it, and you are acknowledging that sex creates babies by abstaining when it is most likely to conceive (or not depending on the couples intent). ABC arrests the fertility cycle of the woman (or the fertility of the man) and takes away the connection between sex and babies, by allowing couples to engage in the marital act even if they are fertile without conceiving.

 

[Vico]

Thank you for the explanation, but we’ve never argued for optimization. This entire point seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I understand your argument. I explained that your argument is incorrect and factually wrong.

First, the ACT contains processes OTHER THAN fertilization and developing a preganancy, which you are ignoring. Abstinance IS a disorder of the physical constitution. Those are spelled out in more detail in this thread, so for the time being I won’t repeat them again.

Second, the Act involves more than just a female.

Abstinence can be fine. We agree. But the natural argument with respect to abstinence as you’ve stated it is incorrect.

Moreover, the use of NFP (which is what is being discussed - comparing NFP to ABC, please read the thread) in order to time abstinence for periods when the female is fertile and the act for periods when she is not holds the same or comparable intent, result, and disorders the physical constitution or physical processes for the COUPLE (it takes two!) as ABC.

Based on the arguments provided so far in this thread, one cannot logically conclude that NFP is “moral” and that ABC is not, or that ABC is immoral and that NFP is not (leaving aside for discussion purposes forms of ABC that may be abortive in nature.)

1. My comment is relevant for you wrote emphatically that optimization is significant:

“As I noted elsewhere in this thread, modern science has shown that the hormones released during sex are important for bonding, for intimacy and have health benefits. There is a reasonable argument to be made that maintaining unity and reducing the procreative aspect for a time is preferable to having periods that are BOTH unifying and procreative or neither unifying or procreative.”

1. I do not ignore processes other than fertilization and developing pregnancy. You wrote:

“… as an aside causing changes in the natural timing of horomones that are impor[t]ant for health, bonding and intimacy) and therefore DOES disorder the physica[l] constitution or physical processes in the same way claimed about ABC”. …“and disorders the physical constitution or physical processes for the COUPLE …”

All changes are not disorders, and what you describe in the preceeding quote is optimization.

NFP and ABC are certainly not the same as there is no device, barrier, or chemical introduced with NFP. The biochemical state of the physiology from abstinance or from non-contracepted sexual intercourse occurs differently than it would with a device, barrier, or chemical introduction of ABC.

1. You wrote: “But the natural argument with respect to abstinence as you’ve stated it is incorrect” However, I did not make a “natural” argument. I use the terms ABC and NFP per convention.

 

[Vico]

…

Vico: “Additionally, a conjugal act is not unifying if it is not a complete gift, with no barriers, such as condoms.”

LOL - well, I think that’s actually up to the giver and receiver to decide, but even so, how is limiting the act to certain periods and changing frequency of the act a MORE complete gift than an act that one can have at any time?

…

The gift is objectively defined as part of the marriage covenant: lifelong, exclusive, and granting the normal conjugal rights * necessary for the generation of children (when just and moral). Unitive is that by which the couple become one flesh.

• CIC Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Good Daughter,

Per Genesis, they first cleave to (associate constantly) one another, and then, through the conjugal act, become one flesh. The Catechism states “from now on”, that is once they are one flesh, they remain one flesh because they are no longer two.

Catechism of the Catholic Church [2364](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2364.htm’) The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149

Vico, is it possible that we can speak of a spiritual union that differs from physical union? Maybe the physical union that comes and goes is a tangible sign of the constant spiritual union? In that case, the answer to kbachler’s question might be both “yes” and “no”.

Of course, I’m just speculating so I’d be interested in your thoughts.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I can understand your point and think it a reasonable one. But the form of “off-cycle” NFP really is no more procreative than the form of a barrier contraceptive. Its APPARENT form (i.e. if we look only at the nekkie couple, right?) seems better, but if you really examine it, if its producing comparable pregnancy rates to a barrier contraceptive (and several on thi board say its pregnancy is lower than a barrier ABC) then on what basis can we argue that the form is more procreative?

Barring mistakes, neither “off-cycle” NFP nor contracepted sex are procreative (if by procreative you mean reproductive).

Sex takes a procreative form when the male and female generative elements are united. If a couple uses a condom as birth control during sex, then that sex is in a contraceptive form. If the condom breaks, sex takes on a procreative form, despite the couple’s intent. If a child is conceived, that sex has also become procreative (reproductive). If a couple uses “off-cycle” NFP as birth control during sex, then that sex is in a procreative form. If they’ve miscalculated something, the procreative form is unaffected and that sex has also become procreative (reproductive).

Procreative form is decided by the couple. Procreation is decided by God.

I mean, since God is God, the form doesn’t matter to Him, he’ll make a baby if He wants to, right? And for the humans, the INTENT is more important than the form - WHY did they do it? And if they used a “time-barrier” (NFP) versus a “space-barrier” (traditional ABC) then one has to conclude that the argument you offer, while nice at first glance, really has no deeper meaning (it only works superficially).

While nothing can stop God from making a baby, He respects our free will. Even Mary, a virgin, gave her permission before becoming pregnant.

Looking at our Catholic liturgy and sacraments makes me think that form matters greatly to God. (I suspect he gives us requirements in form for our benefit, not His.) One example is Eucharist in the form of bread and wine, not grapes and crackers.

Intent and form are both important when it comes to the marital embrace. (By form I don’t mean form of birth control, I mean form of the act itself.) What makes you think form is less important?

 

[Good_Daughter]

My point is that if a couple uses NFP to change the timing/frequency of their marital act, that the marital acts that occur during the woman’s infertile period are not, in fact, procreative in form. That marital act is, actually, no more procreative than what Onan did.

While procreation (meaning reproduction) is dependent on fertility I don’t think procreative form is.

It seems that there is a difference between an act that is done in the procreative form and an act that is actually procreative (meaning reproductive). One of the most obvious differences is that humans are incapable of deliberately performing a procreative act. Please, correct me if I’m wrong .

 

[Consecrated]

I agree.

Which descrates the marital act more? Restricting when a couple may participate in the the act (in order to avoid pregnancy) or using a barrier (in order to avoid pregnancy)?

The Church teaches that engaging in the act while frustrating it’s primary end (procreation) is always wrong and thus a desecration. Since in this case the form is disordered, it does not matter WHAT the intent is (even “My wife will die if she becomes pregnant!!” does not change this), except in terms of personal culpability which we are not in a position to judge. The form DOES matter to God, even though it is true He can do anything, including create a human when the form is intentionally broken. This does not change the fact that intentionally breaking the form is wrong.

The Church teaches that as long as both the husband and the wife are in agreement (i.e. one is not “withholding” – see Church teaching on the marriage debt), choosing not to engage in the act is not wrong. Now, your point is well taken that it is possible for a couple to choose to abstain for poor, or even sinful reasons (selfishness, utter lack of trust in God, etc.) but the sin there comes from the intent which may vary from person to person. There also may be great virtue to be acquired through choosing as a couple to abstain, even if the intent is to avoid conception.

Of course it is true that God blessed us with great capability to do and create lots of things. Some things we choose to do and create with our brains are wrong. IVF or homosexual acts, for example.

The Church teaches (infallibly BTW) that one “tool” (ABC in it’s many permutations) humanity has come up with is always wrong, and may never be used regardless of intent. The other “tool” (charting fertility and timing the marital act) humanity has discovered is not wrong unless it is used with sinful intent (which IMHO is very easy to do, but again that’s just MHO). This is what the Church teaches, as you can read in the myriad quotes and links provided in this thread. We, as faithful Catholics, are wisely counseled when we do not understand an infallible teaching, to give our assent and pray for understanding. That is, while we may not see the logic in a teaching, we may NOT therefore assume that the teaching is wrong because we have applied our own (very fallible BTW) logic to the teaching and found it wanting.

But I suppose the question of infallibility of the Church and the Pope in matters of faith and morals is a discussion for another thread and indeed forum.

Ok, clear as mud? yup.

 

[Consecrated]

By my understanding, natural law as it applies to the morality of our behavior is in reference to “human nature” not “treeandelement nature”. yes?

 

[Vico]

Vico, is it possible that we can speak of a spiritual union that differs from physical union? Maybe the physical union that comes and goes is a tangible sign of the constant spiritual union? In that case, the answer to kbachler’s question might be both “yes” and “no”.

Of course, I’m just speculating so I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Canon 1055 speaks of the covenent and consortium of matrimony. It is the covenant between the baptised that (with form and action of the Church) is essential and makes the sacrament valid, bringing the strengthening of the Holy Spirit from the moment of ratification even before becoming one flesh.

The covenent (*foedus **) is sacred and also transcending ordinary contracts. The consortium * is less than communio and more than societas, it is: a close association of persons sharing the same fortune, fate, and destiny.

• Marriage in canon law: texts and comments, reflections and questions by Ladislas M. Örsy, p. 50-51.

So the physical is greater than a conjugal act as it is a *consortium *and the spiritual dimension is the covenent (foedus) and the action of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament. With that in view, what is meant by “the physical union that comes and goes”? Just the conjugal act?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Canon 1055 speaks of the covenent and consortium of matrimony. It is the covenant between the baptised that (with form and action of the Church) is essential and makes the sacrament valid, bringing the strengthening of the Holy Spirit from the moment of ratification even before becoming one flesh.

The covenent (*foedus **) is sacred and also transcending ordinary contracts. The consortium * is less than communio and more than societas, it is: a close association of persons sharing the same fortune, fate, and destiny.

• Marriage in canon law: texts and comments, reflections and questions by Ladislas M. Örsy, p. 50-51.

So the physical is greater than a conjugal act as it is a *consortium *and the spiritual dimension is the covenent (foedus) and the action of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament. With that in view, what is meant by “the physical union that comes and goes”? Just the conjugal act?

Yes, the conjugal act is what I meant.

 

[Vico]

Yes, the conjugal act is what I meant.

I would not limit physical intimacy into only the conjugal act, but physical intimacy is certainly a sign of spiritual communion, so the conjugal act (with procreative and unitive significances) is also.

You wote: “In that case, the answer to kbachler’s question might be both “yes” and “no”.” So you mean one answer for spiritual and another for physical? There have been many issues raised in the kbachler posts. About which question of kbachler do you answer?

 

[Consecrated]

This sermon from Audio Sancto is a very good synopsis of Church teaching on periodic continence. Lots of quotes from Pope Pius XII.

Fair warning though, the priest giving the homily doesn’t think much of Popcak’s recommendations on NFP.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I would not limit physical intimacy into only the conjugal act, but physical intimacy is certainly a sign of spiritual communion, so the conjugal act (with procreative and unitive significances) is also.

You wote: “In that case, the answer to kbachler’s question might be both “yes” and “no”.” So you mean one answer for spiritual and another for physical?

Yes, I think so.

There have been many issues raised in the kbachler posts. About which question of kbachler do you answer?

This one:

By the argument you present, why would we conclude that it is ok to use the knowledge from NFP to NOT have sex during parts of the cycle? During that period are they “one flesh”?

My answer was no, but after hearing form you I think a fuller answer might be, physically no, but spiritually yes.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I think so.

This one:

My answer was no, but after hearing form you I think a fuller answer might be, physically no, but spiritually yes.

Regarding –
kbachler: By the argument you present, why would we conclude that it is ok to use the knowledge from NFP to NOT have sex during parts of the cycle? During that period are they “one flesh”?

We see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the footnotes, that they are using a broad meaning for “one flesh” not just the conjugal act. That means both the consortium and the covenent, since they give themselves to one another definitively and totally they are no longer two. So they are one flesh throughout the entire cycle.

Reference:

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149

1. Gaudium et spes 48 § 1.
2. Cf. CIC, Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; in christian marriage they acquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament.
3. Mk 10:9 “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
   Mt 19:1-12 … and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. …"
   1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.

 

[kbachler]

While procreation (meaning reproduction) is dependent on fertility I don’t think procreative form is.

It seems that there is a difference between an act that is done in the procreative form and an act that is actually procreative (meaning reproductive). One of the most obvious differences is that humans are incapable of deliberately performing a procreative act. Please, correct me if I’m wrong .

How can a form be procreative if the people performing it are intentionally doing so only during a period when the woman is infertile? How is this form any more procreative than a form that involves a physical barrier?

I contend that to argue that when couples are CHOOSING an infertile period, that the form cannot be any more procreative than a form that involves a physical barrier. Both the comparative intent seems to create and issue, and the actual comparative probability of pregnancy.

 

[kbachler]

The Church teaches that engaging in the act while frustrating it’s primary end (procreation) is always wrong and thus a desecration. Since in this case the form is disordered, it does not matter WHAT the intent is (even “My wife will die if she becomes pregnant!!” does not change this), except in terms of personal culpability which we are not in a position to judge. The form DOES matter to God, even though it is true He can do anything, including create a human when the form is intentionally broken. This does not change the fact that intentionally breaking the form is wrong.

The Church teaches that as long as both the husband and the wife are in agreement (i.e. one is not “withholding” – see Church teaching on the marriage debt), choosing not to engage in the act is not wrong. Now, your point is well taken that it is possible for a couple to choose to abstain for poor, or even sinful reasons (selfishness, utter lack of trust in God, etc.) but the sin there comes from the intent which may vary from person to person. There also may be great virtue to be acquired through choosing as a couple to abstain, even if the intent is to avoid conception.

Of course it is true that God blessed us with great capability to do and create lots of things. Some things we choose to do and create with our brains are wrong. IVF or homosexual acts, for example.

The Church teaches (infallibly BTW) that one “tool” (ABC in it’s many permutations) humanity has come up with is always wrong, and may never be used regardless of intent. The other “tool” (charting fertility and timing the marital act) humanity has discovered is not wrong unless it is used with sinful intent (which IMHO is very easy to do, but again that’s just MHO). This is what the Church teaches, as you can read in the myriad quotes and links provided in this thread. We, as faithful Catholics, are wisely counseled when we do not understand an infallible teaching, to give our assent and pray for understanding. That is, while we may not see the logic in a teaching, we may NOT therefore assume that the teaching is wrong because we have applied our own (very fallible BTW) logic to the teaching and found it wanting.

But I suppose the question of infallibility of the Church and the Pope in matters of faith and morals is a discussion for another thread and indeed forum.

Ok, clear as mud? yup.

Of course, it doesn’t help that the Church’s teaching may be factually incorrect on some key points.

First, there are strong arguments that the primary end of sex is not procreation. It may be for animals, but humans are in many ways different. The bonding element is likely the most important element.

Second, since humans, unlike animals, are basically always available for sex (physically), the use of NFP to adjust the timing/frequency of the marital act disorders it.

Third, yes, we can create things that are sinful. On what basis would be not say that NFP is sinful, since it disorders the act? But the point here was to deal with the “natural law” argument, and to demonstrate that it is a poor argument, not to argue whether or not ABC is in fact ok.

The problem is that logically, NFP appears to be equivalent to ABC. Someone better look for a way out of that infallible teaching. Perhaps one can argue that we now have more knowledge of human sex, and that that changes the impact within society.