Can Contracepting Parents Teach Their Teenagers to Be Chaste?

[mapleoak]

which references…

Originally Posted by CCC
***2368 ***A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.

*This paragraph from the Catechism does not imply that family planning is permissable (i.e. when we get married we are going to have 4 kids, each 2 years apart). That is a misinterpretation of the quote. It says for just reasons (note also that the reasons must be serious, since the Catechism is complementary to already existing Church teaching, it does not cancel out nor negate previous Church teaching that the reasons for periodic continence must be serious) spouses may wish to space the births of their children. This is not a go ahead to “plan” ones family, but an allowance for continence for serious and just reasons.

 

[rlg94086]

mapleoak:
This paragraph from the Catechism does not imply that family planning is permissable (i.e. when we get married we are going to have 4 kids, each 2 years apart). That is a misinterpretation of the quote. It says for just reasons (note also that the reasons must be serious, since the Catechism is complementary to already existing Church teaching, it does not cancel out nor negate previous Church teaching that the reasons for periodic continence must be serious) spouses may wish to space the births of their children. This is not a go ahead to “plan” ones family, but an allowance for continence for serious and just reasons.

Oh, I understand now. It is a matter of the definition of “planning.” The other posters are using it in a looser way - spacing children (which is a plan of action) is allowed. You are using it in a more restrictive manner - spacing children is allowed, but not a thought out plan with a certain number in mind.

So, everyone probably agrees. In our case, we are using NFP due to my wife’s fears from the health dangers in her last pregnancy. A friend of ours is doing the same, after 10 children. By your standards, this use of NFP is okay, correct?

What you oppose, is someone getting married and saying, “okay, here is the plan, we will have 4 children, 3-years apart, and that’s it!”

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[mapleoak]

Oh, I understand now. It is a matter of the definition of “planning.” The other posters are using it in a looser way - spacing children (which is a plan of action) is allowed. You are using it in a more restrictive manner - spacing children is allowed, but not a thought out plan with a certain number in mind.

So, everyone probably agrees. In our case, we are using NFP due to my wife’s fears from the health dangers in her last pregnancy. A friend of ours is doing the same, after 10 children. By your standards, this use of NFP is okay, correct?

What you oppose, is someone getting married and saying, “okay, here is the plan, we will have 4 children, 3-years apart, and that’s it!”

Do I understand you correctly?

It seems that the implication of the terminology used (Natural Family Planning as opposed to Periodic Continence as stated in the Catechism) tends to promote the notion that couples may plan their families, rather than leaving the planning up to God, accepting what His will is for what children He wishes them to have.
There is a tendency to separate the means from the end. The means (periodic continence) which for serious reasons is definately justified according to Church teaching. The end (planning) is an illegitimate and immoral end even when accomplished through the use of moral means. With contraception there is both an immoral means and an immoral end.

 

[jemfinch]

Yes it is disappointing when someone puts another down by trying to dismiss their argument on the grounds that it is sophistry.

I clearly dismissed your argument via other means, not simply by calling it sophistry.

By using such logic one can conclude also that contraception is permissable. Of course doing “all that is necessary” MUST be limited to moral means.

Obviously. I clearly didn’t intend to say that all means are valid, since my statement was made within the context of my quotation of the Catechism, which says “Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality.”

Rather than try to define what I am talking about, I could not put it more eloquently than that which was summed up by Canon Francis J. Ripley in his book “This is the Faith” in which he writes:

You’re arguing against a straw man. The issue Canon Ripley (and you, apparently) have with “Family Planning” is with people who unjustifiably limit the number of children they have. The Catholic Church very clearly has no issue whatsoever with people spacing their children’s births for just reasons, as the Catechism indicates, and that action constitutes family planning.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the principle that a couple cannot limit the number of children they have for just reasons is true. A family having trouble feeding and clothing the children they already have is under no obligation to have more children, and it is in keeping with good stewardship for them to choose by periodic continence (NFP) to delay the birth of any further children until their financial situation improves.

Be sure that you’re not arguing against something we agree on: both of us certainly agree that a married couple refusing to have additional children for frivolous, arbitrary, unjust or selfish reasons is wrong. But there are justifiable reasons to (via moral means) avoid pregnancy, and if you’re arguing against that, I think you’re arguing against the clear teaching of the Catechism.

Jeremy

 

[mapleoak]

I clearly dismissed your argument via other means, not simply by calling it sophistry.

No, you didn’t dismiss anything other than by calling it sophistry, as it is not even understood what you are objecting to. Reread my initial post. Arguing just for the sake of arguing?

Obviously. I clearly didn’t intend to say that all means are valid, since my statement was made within the context of my quotation of the Catechism, which says “Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality.”

It is the only thing that could be deduced from what you wrote.

You’re arguing against a straw man. The issue Canon Ripley (and you, apparently) have with “Family Planning” is with people who unjustifiably limit the number of children they have.

Partially. Unjustifiably limit as well as “Plan” under the commonly understood definition of the word.

The Catholic Church very clearly has no issue whatsoever with people spacing their children’s births for just reasons, as the Catechism indicates,

Arguing for the sake of argument.

and that action constitutes family planning.

uncommon definition.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the principle that a couple cannot limit the number of children they have for just reasons is true.

Who said it was?

A family having trouble feeding and clothing the children they already have is under no obligation to have more children, and it is in keeping with good stewardship for them to choose by periodic continence (NFP) to delay the birth of any further children until their financial situation improves.

NFP stands for Natural Family Planning.

Be sure that you’re not arguing against something we agree on: both of us certainly agree that a married couple refusing to have additional children for frivolous, arbitrary, unjust or selfish reasons is wrong.

It was not me arguing. Go back and find where it started.

But there are justifiable reasons to (via moral means) avoid pregnancy, and if you’re arguing against that, I think you’re arguing against the clear teaching of the Catechism.

And I had asked for you to point out what I said was at odds with the Catechism. And I don’t mean simply posting a paragraph from the Catechism.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Can Contracepting Parents Teach Their Teenagers to Be Chaste?

Yes and I am proof of that. The son of contracepting parents and am 100% chaste. A virgin when I married.

 

[ILoveLittleOnes]

Yes and I am proof of that. The son of contracepting parents and am 100% chaste. A virgin when I married.

Not that I am making any accusations against you, but, to clarify, but being a virgin does not always equal chastity. I have known many people who made this mistake, thinking they could remain chaste without “technically” losing their virginity.

CCC 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

I think the first sin mentioned there is a big one. I believe contraception is highly linked to the acceptance of masturbation.

 

[KarenNC]

I believe contraception is highly linked to the acceptance of masturbation.

Why?

 

[ILoveLittleOnes]

Why?

I think it has to do with the self seeking quality of contracepted sex. It is the idea of sex without responsibility. Conjugal chastity calls for either a) accepting children as the fruit of the conjugal relationship or b) sacrificing with abstinence. You can’t have something for nothing, as they say. A chaste life reaps great spiritual rewards. It is hipocrisy for a contracepting couple to tell their children to be chaste, because they are not being chaste themselves. They may be able to teach their children to wait until marriage before having sex, but not to be chaste. It may happen that a child lives a chaste life in spite of his parents example, but I do not think it is likely. This is what motivated me to move toward true conjugal chastity: I felt like a hypocrite trying to instruct my children in the virtue of chastity. I want them to live chastity for the love of God, not out of a fear of unplanned pregnancy, STDs, etc. This, in my mind, is what spurs the “technical virgin” mentality.

 

[KarenNC]

I think it has to do with the self seeking quality of contracepted sex. It is the idea of sex without responsibility. Conjugal chastity calls for either a) accepting children as the fruit of the conjugal relationship or b) sacrificing with abstinence. You can’t have something for nothing, as they say. A chaste life reaps great spiritual rewards. It is hipocrisy for a contracepting couple to tell their children to be chaste, because they are not being chaste themselves. They may be able to teach their children to wait until marriage before having sex, but not to be chaste. It may happen that a child lives a chaste life in spite of his parents example, but I do not think it is likely. This is what motivated me to move toward true conjugal chastity: I felt like a hypocrite trying to instruct my children in the virtue of chastity. I want them to live chastity for the love of God, not out of a fear of unplanned pregnancy, STDs, etc. This, in my mind, is what spurs the “technical virgin” mentality.

Thanks for the clarification. I disagree with your basic premise that contraception equates to “sex without responsibility”. That some people would like for that to be so, I will agree, but I do not believe that there is ever sex without consequences and therefore there cannot be sex without the responsiblity for dealing with those consequences.

 

[AgnosTheist]

CCC 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

masturbation? yes i did that, but who did not? no man is chaste then. neither pope nor paupers.

 

[Riley259]

Can Contracepting Parents Teach Their Teenagers to Be Chaste?

by Fr. Matthew Habiger, O.S.B. Ph.D.

onemoresoul.com/Can-Contracepting-Parents-Teach-Their-Teenagers-to-Be-Chaste.php

Alot of them will say “do as I say, not as I do” but ultimately that’s just hypocrisy.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No, you didn’t dismiss anything other than by calling it sophistry.

Yes, he did.

Arguing for the sake of argument.

Please drop the rhetoric and clearly define your position: do you or do you not defy the Catechism’s clear declaration that it is moral to space children’s births for just reasons?

2368 For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.

I apologize if you feel you have already defined your position clearly, but I have read this whole thread carefully and honestly do not believe your position is clear at all.

From what I have read, I suspect that you do accept what the Catechism says here but simply engage in outlandish rhetorical gymnastics in order to twist such “child-spacing” out of the commonly accepted definition of “family planning.”

Uncommon definition.

Wait… so, correct me if I’m wrong: you are actually claiming that a married couple who space the births of their children for just reasons is in no way engaging in the act of planning out their family?

If you are claiming just that, then I must ask you why you force your position through such rhetorical gymnastics.

What conclusion could accepting that “spacing children for just reasons” is indeed “family planning” possibly lead to that is so horrible that you wriggle and squirm so relentlessly to avoid it? I really would like to know.

NFP stands for Natural Family Planning.

So you agree that it is “in keeping with good stewardship for [a couple] to choose …] periodic continence” for just reasons, but you contrast “periodic continence” with the use of Natural Family Planning.

“Periodic” means “recurring at intervals of time” or “occurring or appearing at regular intervals” or “repeated at irregular intervals; intermittent.”

So “periodic continence” is continence that is only practiced some of the time. How do couples who have a just reason for avoiding pregnancy know when to practice continence and when not to?

Natural Family Planning methods, that’s how. You can’t deny that the use of NFP accompanies the proper practice of periodic continence by informing it.

Let me ask you another simple question: early in this thread someone - not you - said:

At bottom natural family planning, sophistry aside, seems wrong because it is an attempt to prevent pregnancy.

You replied:

It is wrong. All forms of family “planning” are wrong.

Is Natural Family Planning the antecedent of the pronoun “it” in your reply or is it not?

If not, what is?

If so, why can’t you admit that you simply disagree with the Catholic Church, which clearly accepts the practice of Natural Family Planning as moral when done for the right reasons?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There are a lot of issues wrapped up in the essay that have given me pause over the past few years.

If it is accepted that God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply and that this means to have children, then isn’t it wrong to do anything that would hinder a wife getting pregnant?

Not quite. It’s wrong to intentionally sterilize the act of intercourse yourself. That doesn’t mean that all women or all married women are obligated to have children all the time.

Basically, even refraining from having sex would technically “hinder a wife getting pregnant,” but that doesn’t make it wrong, does it? I feel like making a syllogism so that I am absolutely clear:

1. Refraining from having sex prevents a woman from getting pregnant.
2. It is not immoral for a married couple to decide to refrain from having sex for a just reason.
3. Therefore, it is not sinful to “prevent a woman from getting pregnant” for a just reason.

So why is contraception wrong according to the Catholic Church? Not because it “prevents a woman from getting pregnant,” but because it renders or attempts to render sexual intercourse between a man and his wife incapable of conception.

It’s the means, not the end, which is immoral. That is why mapleoak is wrong.

If that is true, then at bottom natural family planning, sophistry aside, seems wrong because it is an attempt to prevent pregnancy.

As I explained above, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that preventing pregnancy is immoral; it teaches that deliberately sterilizing acts of intercourse or attempting to render them incapable of procreation is immoral. The latter is a means to the former.

It is said that natural family planning is an accepted method to avoid pregnancy because there is a chance that pregnancy will result.

Dead wrong, because - as you yourself pointed out - even popular methods of contraception like condoms and the pill are not 100% effective. If that were the reason NFP is moral, then it would make every method of contraception except hysterectomy (which is of course not immoral if done for medical rather than contraceptive reasons) moral, too - which you also pointed out yourself.

Rather, contraception is immoral - according to the Catholic Church - for the reason I explained above: it attempts to render sexual intercourse incapable of procreation.

Natural Family Planning does not do that; if a couple using NFP decides to have sex during a time when they know the woman’s body is not fertile, they are not guilty of rendering the sexual act incapable of procreation. The sexual act is, at that time, already (probably) incapable of procreation.

The only similarity between the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy (which is not its only or even its primary function, by the way) and contraception is in the intention, the end. It is the means which the Church objects to.

(Of course, if a Catholic couple decides that they will never have children and will use NFP their whole lives to avoid pregnancy, that’s immoral too. But that’s a completely different intention than temporarily avoiding pregnancy.)

I apologize if this discussion is too sensitive for the forum, but in view of the article referred to above it seems acceptable.

I think it’s an acceptable discussion.

 

[mapleoak]

Yes, he did.

Please drop the rhetoric and clearly define your position: do you or do you not defy the Catechism’s clear declaration that it is moral to space children’s births for just reasons?

Wow, aren’t we testy there dropping in out of the blue?

**

2368 For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.

**

I apologize if you feel you have already defined your position clearly, but I have read this whole thread carefully and honestly do not believe your position is clear at all.

I believe I have.

From what I have read, I suspect that you do accept what the Catechism says here but simply engage in outlandish rhetorical gymnastics in order to twist such “child-spacing” out of the commonly accepted definition of “family planning.”

What is the problem?

Wait… so, correct me if I’m wrong: you are actually claiming that a married couple who space the births of their children for just reasons is in no way engaging in the act of planning out their family?

I have a jar of jelly beans. I eat one of them today. Next it is tomorrow. I have a toothache. I decide not to have a jelly bean due to my toothache. For just reason, I refrained from eating a jelly bean. I did not plan how many jelly beans I was going to eat.

If you are claiming just that, then I must ask you why you force your position through such rhetorical gymnastics.

You are making the issue.

What conclusion could accepting that “spacing children for just reasons” is indeed “family planning” possibly lead to that is so horrible that you wriggle and squirm so relentlessly to avoid it? I really would like to know.

Family planning is typically used (PLANNED parenthood for instance) to denote the process of deciding or planning ones family size and spacing. An example: “In two years we are going to have our second child and then we are done.” With periodic continence, the act (or more correctly the omission of an act) is not immoral. Therefore the means are moral. It is the end which determines whether it is licit or not. Periodic continence can be practiced seeking a good end and as well it can be practiced seeking an immoral end.

So you agree that it is “in keeping with good stewardship for [a couple] to choose …] periodic continence” for just reasons, but you contrast “periodic continence” with the use of Natural Family Planning.

Yes and yes. The two are not one and the same.

“Periodic” means “recurring at intervals of time” or “occurring or appearing at regular intervals” or “repeated at irregular intervals; intermittent.”

You are now defining the means, as opposed to the end.

So “periodic continence” is continence that is only practiced some of the time. How do couples who have a just reason for avoiding pregnancy know when to practice continence and when not to?

Having a just end or an immoral end in mind does not affect whether a couple KNOWS when to practice continence. You are confusing the means with the end here.

Natural Family Planning methods, that’s how.

Natural Family Planning encompasses much more than charting fertility cycles. Charting fertility cycles in order to know when one should refrain does not equal planning ones family.

You can’t deny that the use of NFP accompanies the proper practice of periodic continence by informing it.

Now if you could make clear what you are taking issue with. Are you arguing whether the means used are moral or are you disagreeing with the fact that their can be both a moral and an immoral end sought after?

Let me ask you another simple question: early in this thread someone - not you - said:

You replied:

Is Natural Family Planning the antecedent of the pronoun “it” in your reply or is it not?

If not, what is?

If so, why can’t you admit that you simply disagree with the Catholic Church, which clearly accepts the practice of Natural Family Planning as moral when done for the right reasons?

Because I can’t admit that I disagree with Catholic Church. I fully 100% with the Catholic Church. Although the Catholic Church does not say ‘Natural Family Planning is moral when done for the right reasons’. Rather It says ‘periodic continence is moral when done for the right reasons’. This does not have anything to do with whether one charts their cycles are just abstains for an indefinite amount of time.

 

[mapleoak]

I feel like making a syllogism so that I am absolutely clear:

1. Refraining from having sex prevents a woman from getting pregnant.

It is not the same as placing an obstacle (hinderance).

1. It is not immoral for a married couple to decide to refrain from having sex for a just reason.

Correct.

1. Therefore, it is not sinful to “prevent a woman from getting pregnant” for a just reason.

And I use rhetoric?

So why is contraception wrong according to the Catholic Church? Not because it “prevents a woman from getting pregnant,”

Yes, because it “prevents” by placing an obstacle or sterilizing the act.

but because it renders or attempts to render sexual intercourse between a man and his wife incapable of conception.

“prevents”.

It’s the means, not the end, which is immoral. That is why mapleoak is wrong.

With artificial contraception it is both the means and the **end **which are immoral. With periodic continence its the end not the means which may or may not be immoral. It is the end sought after which (lack of serious cause for instance) which determines whether the it is licit. That is why Fone Bone is wrong.

Rather, contraception is immoral - according to the Catholic Church - for the reason I explained above: it attempts to render sexual intercourse incapable of procreation.

Which is why we say the MEANS are immoral.

Natural Family Planning does not do that; if a couple using NFP decides to have sex during a time when they know the woman’s body is not fertile, they are not guilty of rendering the sexual act incapable of procreation.

Hence the means in this case are moral.

The sexual act is, at that time, already (probably) incapable of procreation.

Irrelevent.

The only similarity between the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy (which is not its only or even its primary function, by the way) and contraception is in the intention, the end. It is the means which the Church objects to.

The Church also object to immoral intention. In fact anything can be evil with the wrong intention.

(Of course, if a Catholic couple decides that they will never have children and will use NFP their whole lives to avoid pregnancy, that’s immoral too. But that’s a completely different intention than temporarily avoiding pregnancy.)

How come intention is now relevent here?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Wow, aren’t we testy there dropping in out of the blue?

I’m sorry if I’ve come across as testy. Still, I must suggest that to say I have “dropped in out of the blue” kind of makes it sound like I’ve entered a room and butted into a conversation with no regard for its context, no clue as to what’s already been said. This, of course, is not the case; I promise I have read the entire thread.

Still, the first thing I said was rather abrupt and possibly rude; I’m sorry if I offended you.

What is the problem?

The only real problem is that I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from.

See, other people in this thread began quoting the Catechism and explaining Catholic teaching on contraception, NFP, etc. You said in no uncertain terms that they were incorrect. When pressed for your position, however, you explain one that seems entirely consistent with Catholic teaching, yet you somehow still find statements like “the use of NFP is moral” objectionable.

I think this thread became an argument over semantics even before I entered.

But you have clarified your position, so I’ll address it:

I have a jar of jelly beans. I eat one of them today. Next it is tomorrow. I have a toothache. I decide not to have a jelly bean due to my toothache. For just reason, I refrained from eating a jelly bean. I did not plan how many jelly beans I was going to eat.

Right. But let’s say that you regularly like to have a jelly bean as part of a midnight snack each day, but you’re having an operation on Saturday and after midnight on that day, you can’t eat or drink anything. So you plan ahead and decide not to eat one then.

In that example, you still haven’t decided in advance how many jelly beans you’re going to eat total, but you have planned out in advance when you plan on eating more, and when you plan on not doing so.

Doesn’t that constitute “jelly bean planning” even though you have not decided on the total number of jelly beans you’re going to eventually have eaten?

With periodic continence, the act (or more correctly the omission of an act) is not immoral. Therefore the means are moral. It is the end which determines whether it is licit or not. Periodic continence can be practiced seeking a good end and as well it can be practiced seeking an immoral end.

Of course you’re right; it is possible for the end of periodic continence (which is the means) to be moral or immoral.

The two are not one and the same.

This was in reply to my statement, "You agree that it is ‘in keeping with good stewardship for [a couple] to choose …] periodic continence’ for just reasons, but you contrast ‘periodic continence’ with the use of Natural Family Planning."

Attention! Attention! Most Important Part of My Reply! I will be granting your request:

Now if you could make clear what you are taking issue with.

Of course you’re correct that periodic continence and NFP are not one and the same.

But this is the commonly accepted idea of what “Natural Family Planning” constitutes.

You explicitly stated in your first post in this thread that Natural Family Planning “is wrong.” Natural Family Planning does not refer to what you have in mind by “family planning.”

You are the only person I’ve talked to who believes that the commonly accepted connotation of Natural Family Planning includes the sinful intentions that you associate with it. Case in point:

Natural Family Planning encompasses much more than charting fertility cycles. Charting fertility cycles in order to know when one should refrain does not equal planning ones family.

Of course “charting fertility cycles in order to know when one should refrain” does not equal “planning one’s family” by your definition, but it does equal Natural Family Planning.

Because I can’t admit that I disagree with Catholic Church. I fully 100% with the Catholic Church.

I apologize for accusing you of that. I can see now that our difference is purely one of semantics. Still, you’re going to confuse an awful lot of people if you go around asserting that Natural Family Planning is wrong, when it really doesn’t mean or even have the connotations that you claim it does.

This does not have anything to do with whether one charts their cycles or just abstains for an indefinite amount of time.

It has everything to do with it - that and that alone is what Natural Family Planning is.

 

[Bella3502]

The Catholic Church has always been clear and unchanging in its teachings on birth control.

Not true at all. Most educated Catholic women of child bearing age use some form of artificial birth control, that is not NFP. Ask them why not NFP and they will tell you it is because it does not work for them. How can the Catholic Church be “clear” when they don’t even discuss it? Example: one woman I know has been in the same parish for 30 years. Her son was in high school before she found out how the church feels about tubal ligations. She had her tubes tied after her 2nd child was born, and never thought twice about it. She finds out that she is supposed to feel guilty about a decision she made years ago. She has no guilt and no regrets as it was the best decision for her family. What she does not understand is why she did not then and does not now hear about such things AT Church.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

And now, let me clarify my syllogism.

[Refraining from sex] is not the same as placing an obstacle (hindrance).

Of course not. The former is moral and the latter is gravely sinful.

In response to my syllogism, you said,

And I use rhetoric?

a) I truly don’t understand how that constitutes rhetoric. It’s literally nothing but logic - good logic or bad logic it may be, but nothing but logic nonetheless.

b) I’m not sure why you find that rhetorical, but if I seem to be trying to get away with equivocation in my conclusion, I assure you, I’m not. You and I seem to agree on literally everything except the commonly held connotations of Natural Family Planning.

Yes, because it “prevents” by placing an obstacle or sterilizing the act.

Correct. You rephrased what I said; we are in agreement. It is wrong because it prevents conception by placing an obstacle or sterilizing the act.

With artificial contraception it is both the means and the **end **which are immoral. With periodic continence it’s the end not the means which may or may not be immoral. It is the end sought after (lack of serious cause for instance) which determines whether it is licit. That is why Fone Bone is wrong.

Which is why we say the MEANS are immoral.

Agreed, once again.

If I am wrong, then so are you, for I agree with everything you just wrote.

Hence the means in this case are moral.

This was said in response to, “Natural Family Planning does not do that; if a couple using NFP decides to have sex during a time when they know the woman’s body is not fertile, they are not guilty of rendering the sexual act incapable of procreation.”

And you agreed that the means in that case are moral. So why did you begin your participation in this thread by boldly asserting that Natural Family Planning is morally wrong?

How come intention is now relevant here?

Because it is a completely different intention, one that is immoral. As you yourself said,

The Church also objects to immoral intentions. In fact anything can be evil with the wrong intention.

And by the way, keep in mind what I said before about the fact that avoiding pregnancy is not the defining attribute or the only purpose of Natural Family Planning.

 

[mapleoak]

I’m sorry if I’ve come across as testy. Still, I must suggest that to say I have “dropped in out of the blue” kind of makes it sound like I’ve entered a room and butted into a conversation with no regard for its context, no clue as to what’s already been said. This, of course, is not the case; I promise I have read the entire thread.

Still, the first thing I said was rather abrupt and possibly rude; I’m sorry if I offended you.

Apology accepted.

The only real problem is that I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from.

See, my take on terminology used ‘Natural Family Planning’ was likely developed under a different set of circumstances than how you and many other have probably been taught. As I had said before in a previous post some time back, it IS merely a difference in the understanding of the common usage of the terminology used. I do not see a difference of opinion in the actual substance of the matter.

But you have clarified your position, so I’ll address it:

Right. But let’s say that you regularly like to have a jelly bean as part of a midnight snack each day, but you’re having an operation on Saturday and after midnight on that day, you can’t eat or drink anything. So you plan ahead and decide not to eat one then.

In that example, you still haven’t decided in advance how many jelly beans you’re going to eat total, but you have planned out in advance when you plan on eating more, and when you plan on not doing so.

Doesn’t that constitute “jelly bean planning” even though you have not decided on the total number of jelly beans you’re going to eventually have eaten?

Stop!!! That is too much. “Jelly bean planning”.