Birth Control

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I will directly address your comments when you actually present an argument until then, why don’t you read this: The Catholic View of Artificial Contraception

Tommy, that’s a good article you linked to. I’ve read it and it was well worth reading it. Here’s a quote from the article:

Quote:

    ...when Casti Connubii was issued [in 1931], some significant changes had taken place.  The first birth control clinic had opened, Margaret Sanger had formed the Birth Control League, and the Anglican Church had decided that artificial contraception was permissible for serious reasons.  Pope Pius XI knew that contraception had to be addressed in his document usually translated as “On Christian Marriage.”  In the encyclical the first subject he addresses is the growing animosity towards childbearing:

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. [11]

He connects the animosity towards children directly with artificial means of contraception, and not the periodic abstinence associated with NFP. Furthermore, the Pope issued a statement which would be echoed in future generations. He said that the artificial means of birth control were to be considered intrinsically evil:

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.[12]

This statement also ran directly counter to the statement issued by the Anglican Church earlier that same year. Whereas the Church of England had allowed for artificial birth control for serious reasons, the Catholic Church maintained the teaching that the prohibition against contraception could not be abrogated under any circumstances. He defends his argument by quoting St. Augustine, who notes the “wickedness” of intentionally preventing conception.[13] He closes the topic with an exhortation drawn from the Council of Trent. He reminds the faithful that the precepts of the Church can be adhered to when strengthened by the grace of God.[14]

/end Quote.

I love those statements by Pope Pius XI which I bolded above in the quote. They amount to a clear explanation of what’s allowed, and what’s forbidden by God’s law as the Church understands it. Virtuous continence is not a sin, and using mutually agreed upon abstinence in marriage is not a sinful way to avoid begetting children. But interfering with the nature of the marital act is a sin against nature. This is based on the philosophy that the human body, and its physiological functions were created by God, and intended to function in a certain way - their natural way of functioning. Thus, it is a sin against nature to interfere with the natural workings of the human body during the marital act.

 

[kbachler]

Tommy, that’s a good article you linked to. I’ve read it and it was well worth reading it. Here’s a quote from the article:

Quote:

    ...when Casti Connubii was issued [in 1931], some significant changes had taken place.  The first birth control clinic had opened, Margaret Sanger had formed the Birth Control League, and the Anglican Church had decided that artificial contraception was permissible for serious reasons.  Pope Pius XI knew that contraception had to be addressed in his document usually translated as “On Christian Marriage.”  In the encyclical the first subject he addresses is the growing animosity towards childbearing:

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. [11]

He connects the animosity towards children directly with artificial means of contraception, and not the periodic abstinence associated with NFP. Furthermore, the Pope issued a statement which would be echoed in future generations. He said that the artificial means of birth control were to be considered intrinsically evil:

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.[12]

This statement also ran directly counter to the statement issued by the Anglican Church earlier that same year. Whereas the Church of England had allowed for artificial birth control for serious reasons, the Catholic Church maintained the teaching that the prohibition against contraception could not be abrogated under any circumstances. He defends his argument by quoting St. Augustine, who notes the “wickedness” of intentionally preventing conception.[13] He closes the topic with an exhortation drawn from the Council of Trent. He reminds the faithful that the precepts of the Church can be adhered to when strengthened by the grace of God.[14]

/end Quote.

I love those statements by Pope Pius XI which I bolded above in the quote. They amount to a clear explanation of what’s allowed, and what’s forbidden by God’s law as the Church understands it. Virtuous continence is not a sin, and using mutually agreed upon abstinence in marriage is not a sinful way to avoid begetting children. But interfering with the nature of the marital act is a sin against nature. This is based on the philosophy that the human body, and its physiological functions were created by God, and intended to function in a certain way - their natural way of functioning. Thus, it is a sin against nature to interfere with the natural workings of the human body during the marital act.

I don’t see God’s law referenced in either quote.

Moreover, let’s consider the first quote, which is very steeped in the arguments of the day:

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. [11]

It sounds very much as though he is arguing directly against some of Sanger’s comments, comment which don’t seem to hold sway today. Are there people who make immoral decisions with contraception? Certainly. There are probably some who do so with NFP also. But morality doesn’t come from contraception.

Would we argue that the families who use either ABC or NFP today generally make the type of argument outlined above? I would think there would certainly be an argument toward responsibility, but not toward referring to children as a disagreeable burden. (And no, we cannot claim that for all people, but then morality does not come from the method.)

Of course, this statement is more problematic:
But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.[12]

Let’s consider:
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

Let’s see, by this logic, everyone should do away with their tornado shelters, since it is intrinsically against nature and therefore cannot become morally good.

Or:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children,”

Only, this actually no longer appears to be true. The conjugal act sometimes begets children, but it basically always releases hormones in people that help to cause bonding. So children would actually be SECOND to bonding. And of course, people are not always fertile, but are more likely to still have the bonding mechanisms.

Note the Biblical quotes in the passages.

Sorry, these quotes are unconvincing and provide a weak argument.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Excellent…one more:

You can go into a church to pray. (marital act without abc)
You can walk by the church and do nothing(abstaining- morally neutral)
or you can go into the church and be destructive and desecrate (use of abc during sex- this does not provide any good that the first does…like “well, I’m closer to the tabernacle than I was before”…if you’re desecrating it, it is against it, not bringing you closer)

I see the point, Agapewolf. Let me expand on it, based on the principle of what’s the way intended by God for using something. There’s the natural way, the way intended by God, for using the marriage act and the sexual functions of the human body. Also, there’s a way in which God intended church buildings to be used. And then again, there are ways to use the marriage act, or church buildings for that matter, that are unnatural and perverted.

1. I go into a church to pray. This is how God intended us to use churches.
2. I walk by the church, on my way to skateboarding in the park, or on my way to meet my buddy for a chess game in the park. This is morally neutral, no sin has been committed.
3. I walk into the church, with my chess board, to meet my buddy and play a chess game with him inside the church. Or, I roll in on my skateboard, and start performing stunts inside the church while the holy sacrifice of the Mass is in progress. This is NOT how God intended his church building to be used!

 

[jilly4ski]

kblachler- You seem to be mixing intent with actual action. Certain intents are sinful. Wanting to “plan” ones family or “control births” is not a sinful intent. There are also sinful actions, regardless of intent.

NFP, or total abstinence lacks the action of engaging in sex, is therefore sinful only when the couples/persons intent is sinful.

ABC on the other hand is always sinful because of the action of engaging in sexual relations while creating a barrier in the act itself.

A time barrier, as you keep repeating, is really an intent not an action. We do not do anything to create this tome barrier, it is always there. A couple intends not to have children at this time so they do nothing, there is no act (ie do not engage in sex). Wouldn’t that be the ultimate time barrier? But how is that changing sex?

My NFP teachers actually abstained for over a year because she was very sick.

Taking your “time barrier” argument to the extreme, we are all contracepting right now, because we chose to be on CA instead of having sex. Or that couples having sex when they are infertile are contracepting. Or that being tired, sick, or not in the mood is the same as using ABC.

The Church looks at each individual sexual encounter to determine morality, not peoples sexual life as a whole.

Are you familiar with natural law arguments. That might help you understand what we mean when we say natural or working within God’s design.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Sorry, these quotes are unconvincing and provide a weak argument.

Yeah, but I’m not that much interested in arguments, than in the law of God as the Church understands it. You may counter saying that in your opinion, the Church doesn’t understand the law of God correctly, that you believe the Church is in error, that the Church is not in the position to speak for God, because it lacks authority and/or the intellectual acumen, etc. I understand that. But I won’t go into those debates. My interest is solely in learning and better understanding what the Church teaches, and why the Church teaches it.

 

[Vico]

And if a couple works together on NFP, or together on abstaining for a time, or together on contraception, how does that allegory break down for one, and not for the other?

Which is better - abstaining for periods, so that you can’t have the act of unity OR an act that is procreative, OR

Using a contraceptive, so that you can have an act of unity, that is significantly less procreative?

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.

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)

And Artificial Birth Control (ABC) is never justified because is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.

ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.

Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.

The ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes. The way some work are shown below:

Hormones: prevent ovulation, fertilization,or implantation
Barriers: prevent fertilization
IUD: prevent implantation
Poisons: destroy reproductive cells
Abortifactants: destroy zygote

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

(1) Pope Pius XII
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

 

[Good_Daughter]

Well, since Jews did sometimes use contraception, I don’t see where Christ’s word (which are a quote) imply that at all.

It is possible that Jews using contraception were acting outside of God’s law, much like those practicing divorce would have been, as Jesus points out in Matthew 19.

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”?

Neither Scripture nor the Church give specific detail on when or how often a married couple is to have sex. I think then it’s rational to say a couple may abstain in order to minimize or maximize their chances of pregnancy.

So while a couple is abstaining, are they one flesh? I would say no, because the one flesh union seems to refer to something specific, a physical form that expresses married love. What do you think? (I’m not setting you up for something here, just genuinely interested in ideas that make sense.)

And thank you for a polite approach and comment. It IS appreciated.

You’re quite welcome. I know many people in real life who share your point of view, but they’re too angry to discuss contraception rationally, so thank you for the good dialogue.

 

[Good_Daughter]

When a couple uses NFP in order to change the timing and/or frequency of the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy, then they have in fact changed the marital act.

In fact, that is the reason NFP exists. The Act still has unity, it is not procreative.

I hope you don’t mind, kbachler, it just occurred to me what I bolded above is probably where your point of view is most at odds with Catholicism.

I think what the Church teaches is that each marital embrace must be procreative in form.

Why the requirement for procreative form? Beacuse, as humans, that’s all we can do. We can’t make any act actually procreative, only God can. Whether or not it produces offspring, sex in the procreative form allows for the union of male and female generative elements or, the one flesh union. The unity of the act is a result of that act being procreative in form.

Catholics can see the importance of form by looking at any sacrament. Maybe the procreative form is so important in the marital act because it’s the renewal of a sacrament?

 

[Vico]

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

 

[kbachler]

I hope you don’t mind, kbachler, it just occurred to me what I bolded above is probably where your point of view is most at odds with Catholicism.

I think what the Church teaches is that each marital embrace must be procreative in form.

Why the requirement for procreative form? Beacuse, as humans, that’s all we can do. We can’t make any act actually procreative, only God can. Whether or not it produces offspring, sex in the procreative form allows for the union of male and female generative elements or, the one flesh union. The unity of the act is a result of that act being procreative in form.

Catholics can see the importance of form by looking at any sacrament. Maybe the procreative form is so important in the marital act because it’s the renewal of a sacrament?

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?

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).

Thank you for your comment.

 

[kbachler]

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)

Please define “optimization”.

Planning a family is the basis for birth control. It IS why it exists. Birth control is a tool. One would not ask is a plow is moral for a couple. (And yes, we were given dominion over the Earth, just as we were told to be fruitful and multiply, so the metaphor DOES make sense.

And Artificial Birth Control (ABC) is never justified because is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.

The contentions are:

**1. So called “Artificial Birth Control” is no more artificial than NFP. ** Hence to determine that one is immoral is to determine that the both are, to determine that one is moral is to determine that they both are.

2. So called “Artificial Birth Control” is no more intentional than NFP. Hence to determine that one is immoral is to determine that the both are, to determine that one is moral is to determine that they both are.

**3. So called “Artificial Birth Control” does no more to disorder the physical constitution or physical processes than NFP does. ** Hence to determine that one is immoral is to determine that the both are, to determine that one is moral is to determine that they both are.

This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.

NFP designed to change the frequency and timing of the marital act to the female’s infertile times does not accomplish this any more than a traditional so-called ABC.

ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.

Simply defining something as so, does not make it that way. I could define a rock as something light that promotes the flight of a bird - but a rock does not suddenly do tha.

NFP allows people to choose to alter their natural timing and frequency of the marital act (as an aside causing changes in the natural timing of horomones that are imporant for health, bonding and intimacy) and therefore DOES disorder the physica constitution or physical processes in the same way claimed about ABC; the only differece is that ABC is more visually apparent, while understanding that NFP does so requires a deeper understanding of what is actually physically happening.

In fact, it is quite logical to argue tht ABC does this LESS than NFP since ABC only restricts the proceative aspects and NOT the unitive ones, while ABC does both. And this information is available from actual physical analysis. Hence, the claim that ABC does so, and not NFP is incorrect.

Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.

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

The ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes. The way some work are shown below:

Hormones: prevent ovulation, fertilization,or implantation
Barriers: prevent fertilization
IUD: prevent implantation
Poisons: destroy reproductive cells
Abortifactants: destroy zygote

NFP changes timine to prevent fertilization and implantation. It also has a negative impact on unitive hormones. Thus it also disorders physical constitution or physical processes.

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?

Thank you for taking the time to present these arguments.

I am sorry, but I do not find the arguments you presented convincing, largely because they appear to be factually incorrect. In addition, it appears as though “spatial-intent/barriers” are given importance, while “temporal-intent/barriers” are ignored, even though they have at least an equivalent impact.

 

[Sillara]

I mean, since God is God, the form doesn’t matter to Him

I think this is the crux of the matter. You are assuming that the “form” does not matter to God. We are physical beings, and God relates to us physically, as well as spiritually. We are Catholics, not Protestants. We believe that Jesus Christ is present, BODY and Soul, BLOOD and Divinity in the Eucharist. And the form of the Eucharist (actually the “matter” of the Sacrament) matters a great deal.

What we do with our bodies MATTERS. That is why it is important that the “form”, in your terminology, DOES need to be what God designed it to be.

 

[kbachler]

I think this is the crux of the matter. You are assuming that the “form” does not matter to God.

I am arguing this only from the perspective of God is God and can do what he wishes in terms of creatng a baby. No form of birth control is perfect. If God wishes to create a baby, He can create one.

Are you arguing the above is not true?

We are physical beings, and God relates to us physically, as well as spiritually. We are Catholics, not Protestants. We believe that Jesus Christ is present, BODY and Soul, BLOOD and Divinity in the Eucharist. And the form of the Eucharist (actually the “matter” of the Sacrament) matters a great deal.

What we do with our bodies MATTERS. That is why it is important that the “form”, in your terminology, DOES need to be what God designed it to be.

Regarding the second part of your post, I agree, and this is exactly why I believe that God may be against NFP. Changing the timing/frequency of an act that he created in such a way that the unitive aspects are important at any time, is not a better solution than changing the procreative aspects of that act.

 

[kbachler]

I hope you don’t mind, kbachler, it just occurred to me what I bolded above is probably where your point of view is most at odds with Catholicism.

I think what the Church teaches is that each marital embrace must be procreative in form.

I understand this, and (while I am not 100% certain I agree) I feel that the argument is reasonable and can certainly agree for purposes of this discussion.

But that’s not my point.

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.

 

[kbachler]

I see the point, Agapewolf. Let me expand on it, based on the principle of what’s the way intended by God for using something. There’s the natural way, the way intended by God, for using the marriage act and the sexual functions of the human body. Also, there’s a way in which God intended church buildings to be used. And then again, there are ways to use the marriage act, or church buildings for that matter, that are unnatural and perverted.

1. I go into a church to pray. This is how God intended us to use churches.

Churches NEVER have any other purpose? They NEVER have fundraisers? They never host gatherings? Or dinners, or meals?

1. I walk by the church, on my way to skateboarding in the park, or on my way to meet my buddy for a chess game in the park. This is morally neutral, no sin has been committed.

Unless, of course, you should have been doing something else, like going to church, right?

1. I walk into the church, with my chess board, to meet my buddy and play a chess game with him inside the church. Or, I roll in on my skateboard, and start performing stunts inside the church while the holy sacrifice of the Mass is in progress. This is NOT how God intended his church building to be used!

Not how He intended? Ever? If a priest had a homily where your skateboard was a great visual aid, would it still be improper?

Churches are in fact used for more than one purpose; as is sex. Can we reasonably argue that NFP doesn’t potentially harm the unitive aspects? I think not.

In general, I think this is a poor analogy; doesn’t fit well comparing sex to the different alternatives given here.

 

[Vico]

…

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) *

(1) Pope Pius XII
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

*~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951 *

Merriam Webster

optimization: an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible; specifically : the mathematical procedures (as finding the maximum of a function) involved in this

birth control 1: control of the number of children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception : contraception

basis 3a : something on which something else is established or based

Rephrase my statement of “Optimization is not the basis for use or non-use of birth control.” to:

the methodology of making sexual relations as fully perfect as possible is not the goal on which the decision for contraception is founded.
Rather the decision for contraception is founded is upon serious motives given by Pope Pius XII: medical, eugenic, economic, social.

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.

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.

 

[agapewolf]

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.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I understand this, and (while I am not 100% certain I agree) I feel that the argument is reasonable and can certainly agree for purposes of this discussion.

But that’s not my point.

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.

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

 

[kbachler]

kblachler- You seem to be mixing intent with actual action.

Not generally – but to clarify for some where intent was important, yes.

Certain intents are sinful. Wanting to “plan” ones family or “control births” is not a sinful intent. There are also sinful actions, regardless of intent.

I likely agree, and can certainly agree for purposes of discussion.

NFP, or total abstinence lacks the action of engaging in sex, is therefore sinful only when the couples/persons intent is sinful.

I disagree. NFP is a tool. Sometimes a tool can be used incorrectly with moral intent. Accidental harm can result. We have an obligation to be use tools knowledgeably & wisely. Therefore, the accidental misuse of a tool can be sinful.

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.)

ABC on the other hand is always sinful because of the action of engaging in sexual relations while creating a barrier in the act itself.

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

A time barrier, as you keep repeating, is really an intent not an action.

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)

We do not do anything to create this time barrier, it is always there.

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.*
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. Or, if a woman were chaste and if she was taking the Pill for medical reasons, there would be no issue with this.

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.

A couple intends not to have children at this time so they do nothing, there is no act (ie do not engage in sex). Wouldn’t that be the ultimate time barrier? But how is that changing sex?

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.

My NFP teachers actually abstained for over a year because she was very sick.

Sometimes there is a greater good.

Taking your “time barrier” argument to the extreme, we are all contracepting right now, because we chose to be on CA instead of having sex.

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.

Or that couples having sex when they are infertile are contracepting.

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.

Or that being tired, sick, or not in the mood is the same as using ABC.

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

The Church looks at each individual sexual encounter to determine morality, not peoples sexual life as a whole.

And that is what I am doing. You’re argument expanded the universe of situations above what I was arguing (only the NFP guided encounters.)

Are you familiar with natural law arguments. That might help you understand what we mean when we say natural or working within God’s design.

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.

 

[PassingThru]

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

I dont think anyone is saying the the physical act of sex is different.

Your first sentence is revealing. “Do Catholic couples have a schedule they must follow in having sex?” Of course not. But, that is not the question. It should be “Do Catholic couples practicing NFP have a schedule they must follow in having sex?” The answer to that, broadly, is yes. At least to correctly practice NFP.

You also said “there is really no “change” in the timing of sex” and “The entire cycle of a woman is open to the act or open to not have the act”. This is very misleading. Of course Catholics do not have to follow such rules. However, NFP, by its very definition, relys on what you just stated is not true.