Circular NFP reasoning

[Emily_Watson]

Minerva, I think I understand where you are coming from in reading a post of yours from a different thread. Using NFP may be an added benefit in your situtation, since you know your cycle and yourself well (yet another great benefit).
God Bless You!!!

 

[darcee]

Minerva:

not all ABC is abortafacient. Condoms aren’t, diaphrams aren’t, vasectomies aren’t, etc.

you just proved my point by saying a cold and a tumor are naturally occuring processes too. If God is in charge of everything, then why isn’t it just as sinful to interfere with His will for our bodies when we get a cold? Nature is nature, after all.

The difference between sex and cancer is that sex is an explict action. NFP controls fertility but doesn’t seperate it from the procreative act.

To interfear in the sexual process to avoid the responsibilities of it is to make the action itself a lie.

-D

 

[Lora_Lee]

How could anyone compare removing a tumor with NFP!!?? That makes no sense. As mentioned by one of the other posters, cancer is a DISEASE, fertility **isn’t! :ehh: **If the two are comparable then it would be a sin to use NFP as well.

The point is that not only is abstinence not a sin, it can even be virtuous. It demands self-control from both husband and wife. But let’s not overlook the fact that even NFP is wrong when a couple prevents children for no good reason.

I know a family that only has two children, they use NFP but they are not open to having more even though there are no medical problems, financial problems, etc. They simply do not want any more children. In this cas, they have proven they are not open to life and are therefore living contrary to God’s plan.

In answer to someone else’s comment saying how can we know if this is the way God meant us to be, it is obvious this is His intended designed because the fertility of a couple brings forth life, where as contraception, cancer, and other illnesses stymie, prevent or even end life. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” He did not say I am the way, the truth, the life and sometimes death.

 

[Minerva]

I wasn’t comparing NFP to treating cancer, I was comparing ABC to treating cancer. Both interfere with nature. How do we know that one part of nature (fertility) is God’s plan but another part of nature (cancer) isn’t? God is lord of life - He is in control of everything, presumably, and that includes when it’s someone’s “time to go.” Are you saying that when someone gets cancer it isn’t God’s will so we can artificially interfere? But when someone ovulates, it is God’s will and we can’t artificially interfere?

As for Jesus saying He is the way, truth, and life, He is talking about eternal life, not physical life. There are plenty of instances in the Bible where God does cause the death of a person. Scripture supports the claim that God is Lord of Life - He opens the womb but also “calls us home”. If it is wrong to interfere with the former, why is it OK to interfere with the latter?

As for using NFP in my situation, I was actually in the process of charting when I started having problems. NFP no longer was an option after that, since I was not having anything remotely close to a phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 pattern. It wasn’t just irregular cycles, it was abnormal, unhealthy cycles that needed medical treatment

 

[The_Barrister]

In addition to the distinction between natural and artificial, the chief differences are self-discipline and the role of prayer in the process, neither of which is found in artificial methods.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Emily Watson:

All things being equal, we are called to be open to life. Just because a woman has a hysterectomy, or for that matter is infertile, does not mean that she is not open to life. It means that there is a different calling for her and her spouse. In these cases NFP is moot.

Again, since the topic is NFP, I assume that all things are equal.

Condoms do not “protect” against pregnancy 100%. You are right in that their use is 100% sinful. However, the topic is NFP.

Dear Emily Watson,

I started this thread, and although ABC does not appear in the title, I fully intended to explore issues like your last comment.

My issue is not with NFP itself; I think it’s great that so many couples have found peace and joy in it. My issue is with the relative “sinfulness” the church maintains about NFP v. ABC. Briefly put, ABC is sinful because it is not “open to life,” whereas NFP is not sinful because, although it ostensibly is “open to life” it is more effective at preventing pregnancy than most ABC methods, including condoms.

Speaking of having your cake and eating it too, that’s what these two pro-NFP arguments sound like when I put them together. I would welcome your comments on why condoms are 100% sinful when they are “open to life” due to their ineffectiveness, amid NFP claims that NFP is more effective at preventing conception; this is exactly the type of discussion I was looking for when I started the thread.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

RCEllis:

Barrier methods do not make the womb uninhabitable.

In my opinion NFP is in fact birth control… but the issue ultimately relates not to procreation per se, but rather to treating sex as simple recreation.

It’s pretty clear to me that The Church sees recreational sex as a threat to the married life and I agree completely. It has the effect of distorting the deep practical and emotional committments that must be present for a healthy sexual relationship.

I think that focusing primarily on the baby/no baby issue misses the point. However, I admit that you have to presume that sex is more than just ‘fun’ to see it this way.

Clint

Dear Clint,

I agree with your view that the Church sees recreational sex as a threat to the married life, and for the moment I’ll put aside the baby/no baby issue. This really gets to a deeper level, and a more important point I have about the Church teachings on sex and marriage than I alluded to so far.

I’ve read in many places that the primary “purpose” of marriage is, in fact, procreation. It seems the aspect of sex bringing couples together is added almost parenthetically and as a concession, as a secondary reason for sex within marriage – and possibly as an excuse for the Church to allow marriage without the spouses having to prove fertility. The rank-and-file priesthood has widely varying views on this, as recently a young priest told a couple I know that because she has a hysterectomy (because of he ovaries were nearly ruptured due to some kind of clogging) that she and her husband must not have sexual relations.

My opinion is that it is our attempts to make legalistic arguments out of our desire to control sex except for procreation without completely offending the sensibilities, that are behind the types of circular NFP reasoning that I pointed out at the beginning of this thread.

Strangely, the Church seems to be silent on, if not in opposition to, the teachings in 1 Cor 7 about sex and marriage. I have never seen it referenced or even mentioned in Church teachings, including Humanae Vitae. Why does the Church ignore it completely in favor of developing an entire curriculum of study extrapolated from the “go forth and multiply” admonition in Genesis. Briefly, it sounds like St. Paul is teaching that the whole reason for getting married involves taking care of lustful desires, not to procreate. If I’m wrong about this, please help me understand. If I’m right about this, then I’d like to know why the Church persist in keeping her sheep in the dark.

1 Cor 7:1-7

“Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,” but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”

Reading other translations of this helped make it even more clear to me.
The Catholic NAB translation is at: usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm
Many other translations can be found at: biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+cor+7%3A1-7&search=&version=ALL&language=english

Alan

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The issue of effectiveness is a non-starter because it is the difference between mere facts vs. moral choices. A .38 caliber pistol round is effective at penetrating a car door. A .357 round is effective at penetrating both doors (and two people in between.) These facts have nothing to do with the moral question of picking up a gun and shooting people. Randomly shooting cars on the freeway is immoral. Shooting someone in self-defense is morally acceptable. Using ABC to thwart God’s design is immoral. Using the information from NFP in acknowledgement of God’s design is morally acceptable.

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell:

The issue of effectiveness is a non-starter because it is the difference between mere facts vs. moral choices. A .38 caliber pistol round is effective at penetrating a car door. A .357 round is effective at penetrating both doors (and two people in between.) These facts have nothing to do with the moral question of picking up a gun and shooting people. Randomly shooting cars on the freeway is immoral. Shooting someone in self-defense is morally acceptable. Using ABC to thwart God’s design is immoral. Using the information from NFP in acknowledgement of God’s design is morally acceptable.

Scott

Dear Scott,

I don’t quite follow your analogy.

It sounds like you’re saying shooting people randomly is wrong, although shooting in self-defense can be moral. Whether you use one weapon or another to achieve the same goal is irrelevant in terms of morality. I agree with that, and the CCC would seem to back us up on it.

Applying this to NFP v. ABC, both methods are to achieve the same goal, although they are different weapons. It would seem that by your analogy you have shown that it is the intent behind why we are trying to prevent conception rather than by which method. In other words, if you are “thwarting God’s design” because of selfish motives (don’t want to accept another child) would be wrong, whereas if you’re doing it in self-defense (due to serious medical threats) it would be OK. Either way, NFP and ABC are morally the same.

Alan

 

[Scott_Waddell]

What I am trying to do is get separation between effectiveness and morality. I agree the anaolgy breaks down afterwards because they are not equivalent. My point is that when NFP defenders talk about effectiveness they anwering the specific objection that they hear all the time: “It doesn’t work!” and the insipid joke, “What do you call women using NFP?: Mothers.” As if motherhood was an anomaly in a marriage rather than the primary and normative puprose of it. What happens is the naysayers jump on the answer about effectiveness and go, “aha! they are the same!”, which they are not because NFP does not prevent conception–it only gives information. What a couple does with that information is where the moral question enters.

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell:

What I am trying to do is get separation between effectiveness and morality. I agree the anaolgy breaks down afterwards because they are not equivalent. My point is that when NFP defenders talk about effectiveness they anwering the specific objection that they hear all the time: “It doesn’t work!” and the insipid joke, “What do you call women using NFP?: Mothers.” As if motherhood was an anomaly in a marriage rather than the primary and normative puprose of it. What happens is the naysayers jump on the answer about effectiveness and go, “aha! they are the same!”, which they are not because NFP does not prevent conception–it only gives information. What a couple does with that information is where the moral question enters.

Scott

Dear Scott,

As far as NFP simply providing information, as distinguished from a couple actually making use of that information, I don’t make that distinction from a moral standpoint. If it’s wrong to use the information to aviod having children, then I would say it would be wrong for the Church to teach it, and then advertise its methods as being “scientific” and “effective” at avioding pregnancy. It seems to me like it’s a poTAYto, poTAHto distinction. If I refer to “practicing NFP” I guess I meant to say “making use of NFP training to plan for temporal gaps between children.”

You raise a more fundamental issue than I started with, though, when you inferred that “motherhood” is the primary and normative purpose of marriage. This is another question I have about Church teachings; in Humanae Vitae and other places, I see this as the ostensibly logical conclusion from the exhortation to “go forth and multiply.” I consider this a huge extrapolation, especially considering the teachings of the New Testament that the Church completely disregards as far as I can tell. That would be 1 Cor 7:1-7, which I won’t repeat here because I put it in a different post above. Briefly, Paul says that marriage is a concession to single life, which is preferable, and should be entered into for the reason of taking care of sexual needs to prevent lust. If that’s not what it is saying, I’d like to hear your take on it.

The Catholic NAB translation is at: usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm
Many other translations can be found at: biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+cor+7%3A1-7&search=&version=ALL&language=english

Alan

 

[Bill_Buck]

AlanFromWichita:

My issue is with the relative “sinfulness” the church maintains about NFP v. ABC. Briefly put, ABC is sinful because it is not “open to life,” whereas NFP is not sinful because, although it ostensibly is “open to life” it is more effective at preventing pregnancy than most ABC methods, including condoms.

Speaking of having your cake and eating it too, that’s what these two pro-NFP arguments sound like when I put them together. I would welcome your comments on why condoms are 100% sinful when they are “open to life” due to their ineffectiveness, amid NFP claims that NFP is more effective at preventing conception; this is exactly the type of discussion I was looking for when I started the thread.

Alan

By using NFP you avoid pregnancy by avoiding intercourse.

By using ABC you avoid pregnancy by blocking conception while engaging in intercourse.

The earlier example of dieting is a good analogy. Regulating the consumption of food to maintain a healthy body is good. Eating all the food you want then purging yourself of that food so you can eat more with out gaining weight is disordered.

NFP is more effective than condoms because you don’t have sex at times of fertility.

Condoms are not open to life because by their very nature their purpose is to block contraception. Their effectiveness at doing this task does not negate the sinfulness of their use or make them “open to life”. Nobody uses a condom or any ABC as an aid to attaining pregnancy. NFP can be used to aid in attaining pregnancy.

It is by the use of ABC that a person tries to “have their cake and eat it too”, all the sex they want without the natural consequences.

Bill

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Bill Buck:

NFP is more effective than condoms because you don’t have sex at times of fertility.

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you can tell me why NFP people get so upset when it’s compared to the “rhythm method?”

The rhythm method, as I was taught almost 30 years ago, is an attempt at avioding sex at times of fertility. Perhaps modern NFP teaching is more detailed than what they taught in the 70’s, but I don’t see any fundamental or moral difference. Why do NFP advocates hate the comparison so much?

Alan

 

[Nathan_s_King]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you can tell me why NFP people get so upset when it’s compared to the “rhythm method?”

The rhythm method, as I was taught almost 30 years ago, is an attempt at avioding sex at times of fertility. Perhaps modern NFP teaching is more detailed than what they taught in the 70’s, but I don’t see any fundamental or moral difference. Why do NFP advocates hate the comparison so much?

Alan

There is no moral difference. The difference is only in the effectiveness. Many people abandoned the rhythm method because of poor effectiveness. Many people who hear about NFP for the first time say “oh, that’s just the rhythm method, which doesn’t work, so I won’t consider it further.” We strive to separate the two purely to get past this misconception.

If you are willing to overlook it’s relatively poor effectiveness (about 15% of all women get pregnant each year they use the rhythm method), it’s a fine method of postponing pregnancy.

I hope that helps.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Some of this is quite funny.
A sales tactic is to call the one method ABC.
But it is really ACC. ( Artificial Conception Control ).

Birth control is what the obstetrition does in the birthing suite.

Notice also, it isn’t NBC its NFP. Its not about “control” its about preperation for whatever God gives us.

I laugh at the though of defending condoms on the basis of them not being effective, and so meeting the “moral” requirement of openness to life.

I wouldn’t withdraw money from a bank using a squirt gun, and then try to defend myself against the police by saying it was an ineffective robbery – it couldn’t REALLY hurt anyone!
And it wouldn’t make any difference if the goal was a good one, to withdraw MY money, which I had deposited!

Both the method and the goal have to be good in order for an act to be morally good.

God made us male and female, with the plan of reproduction built in. (It is not an aspect of masulinity or feminity to have a tumor or cold, so those things don’t have to do with being male and female).
In the image of God we are made, a duality, and at conception a trinity – expressed in each child. It is true that some people have medical conditions which requre treatment, even the pill. They aren’t choosing the pill though, in that case, to thwart God’s creation of masculinity and femininity but rather to restore the image as much as possible.

The quote, Alan, of Corinthians, is thought provoking. However, no mention is made of ACC in it. The ideal is for a man and woman to have SELF control. St. Paul has it.

Consider another passage - Gen 38:8
Onan didn’t want even one child to named after his brother and he solved it by a very ineffective means of conception control. All Onan was faced with was supporting a wife with one child who would not bear his name!
What was Onan doing that isn’t acheived by a condom?
This passage shows one of the moral differences between say NFP and a vasectomy.
If the spouse desires children, the husband has a duty to perform and vice versa. ( 1 Cor 7 : 4 ).
That point is occasionally overlooked even by NFP users.
I, as spouse, am a gift – and I lay my life down.
I look to my spouse first.

All I really see in Corinthians is Paul advocating a less evil approach to a problem. For people who would fornicate, adulturate, lust, etc. Both the means and the ends are bad.
At least in marriage the means (conjugal act) is good.
In the former, there is no hope, in the latter their is hope.
The expectation is that those who have quenched the fire in marriage, will also be laboring to raise the children.
That, in itself, is an aid to those not actively pursuing lust.

The sales pitch Paul is using here, is the same that NFP users are applying to others.
The condom is always wrong as a means, though sometimes the end is justifyable. (Prayer is one possibility).
So the NFP advertizer is doing a service by at least getting others to improve the means – irrespective of whether or not they succeed in improving the goal of that persons life.

There is always hope that by improving the means, the grace of God is given the chance to work on the ends.

What God has joined, let no man seperate.
No more artificial barriers to God.

 

[Chris_C]

One thing to understand in the context of this conversation is the compassion of the Church. the Church is a mother, who understands the limitations of her children. She provides for husbands and wives a means that is not contrary to God’s law to bring into the world the number of children they discern they can rear. Discern, here, is a loaded word, to be sure, and it possible, I believe for a couple, to sin, venially, anyway by resorting to NFP without sufficient cause. But the reason NFP is licit is not because “there’s always a chance.” Heck, if that were the case, condoms would be fare game, because their “failure” rate is higher than NFP’s. NFP is licit because abstinence from the conjugal embrace for a good reason is not wrong. Directly interfering with the conjugal embrace is. Some traditionalist Catholics take an almost jansenist position toward ntural means of regulating births, but nowhere does the Church require her children to reproduce like gangbusters.

Chris C.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Huiou Theou:

Some of this is quite funny.

I laugh at the though of defending condoms on the basis of them not being effective, and so meeting the “moral” requirement of openness to life.

Dear Huiou Theou,

I’m glad you’re amused, but I can’t claim to be the comedian. That is a logical derivation of pro-NFP literature claiming NFP is “more effective” than other methods (such as condoms) at preventing conception, while at the same time claiming condoms are immoral because they are used with the intent of preventing conception. I can’t make this stuff up; I only observe it. Is it any wonder I am skeptical?

The quote, Alan, of Corinthians, is thought provoking. However, no mention is made of ACC in it. The ideal is for a man and woman to have SELF control. St. Paul has it.

I agree. My point in quoting 1 Cor 1:1-7 was in response to the Church’s claim that sex within marriage that is not “open to life” is bad, among other reasons, because the primary purpose of marriage is to facilitate procreation. Paul doesn’t mention ACC, but nor does he mention “openness to life” or “procreation” when instructing why people should even decide to get married and why they should have sex. I think it is a shame the Church doesn’t teach on this.

Consider another passage - Gen 38:8
Onan didn’t want even one child to named after his brother and he solved it by a very ineffective means of conception control. All Onan was faced with was supporting a wife with one child who would not bear his name!
What was Onan doing that isn’t acheived by a condom?
This passage shows one of the moral differences between say NFP and a vasectomy.
If the spouse desires children, the husband has a duty to perform and vice versa. ( 1 Cor 7 : 4 ).
That point is occasionally overlooked even by NFP users.
I, as spouse, am a gift – and I lay my life down.
I look to my spouse first.

That is interesting. I don’t spend a great deal of time in the OT so I wasn’t aware of this. Still, I would be careful about using Genesis lessons over New Testament teaching on the purpose of marriage, especially since the Church teaches (according to my son’s high school religion teachers) the Genesis and Revelation are to be interpreted figuratively.

Also I see your point about the husband and wife having a duty toward each other. I can’t imagine what it would be like for spouses to disagree on whether to have children. (note: my wife and I have six) As you mentioned, though, if that is a problem the use of NFP in preference to condoms does not solve it.

All I really see in Corinthians is Paul advocating a less evil approach to a problem. For people who would fornicate, adulturate, lust, etc. Both the means and the ends are bad.
At least in marriage the means (conjugal act) is good.
In the former, there is no hope, in the latter their is hope.
The expectation is that those who have quenched the fire in marriage, will also be laboring to raise the children.
That, in itself, is an aid to those not actively pursuing lust.

Perhaps, but that sounds like pure speculation about what Paul didn’t say.
Thank you for an excellent reply. I learned something today. I’m glad I brought up the subject.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you can tell me why NFP people get so upset when it’s compared to the “rhythm method?”

The rhythm method, as I was taught almost 30 years ago, is an attempt at avioding sex at times of fertility. Perhaps modern NFP teaching is more detailed than what they taught in the 70’s, but I don’t see any fundamental or moral difference. Why do NFP advocates hate the comparison so much?

Alan

Because it was ridiculed so much to the extent it causes people to totally disregard anything like it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… That is a logical derivation of pro-NFP literature claiming NFP is “more effective” than other methods (such as condoms) at preventing conception…, I can’t make this stuff up; I only observe it. Is it any wonder I am skeptical?

It is a fact that NFP can be used to avoid conception, but not prevent it. The latter word, prevent, can be synonymous with contraception in one of its meanings – impede.
The brochures I have read do not misstate the case as preventing conception. Do you have a copy, so that the publisher might receive feedback?

What I am finding humorous, are the labels such as ABC.
They are misleading even when cut and pasted into conversations.

If it is, in fact, a logical derivation that that “more-effective”, leads to artifical contraception being equivalent to natural family planning, then I could analogously derive that withdrawing money from a bank via a gun is eqivalent to using a withdrawl slip – but that is absurd. It is only equivalent in the receiving of money, and is logically ignoring the more important aspect of the problem – The robbery and its consequences.

I think it is a shame the Church doesn’t teach on this.

It clearly does, as someone has already noted there is the encyclical letter of Paul VI entitled Humanae Vitae.

e.g. section 17:
<< It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anticonceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, … may come to the point of considering her a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment … >>

and in section 9:
“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage…”

And to be figurative, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

See the whole encyclical: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Still, I would be careful about using Genesis lessons over New Testament teaching on the purpose of marriage, …

The church has the right to interpret scripture and natural law, as the pillar of truth.

To be succinct, I am not using the OT over the NT. I am using it in an additional but not contradictory way.
The reason Genesis is the source, is because the NT – (even from Jesus himself) quotes it on marriage. Mt 19:3-7

Notice the book of Genesis is literally a book about “the Beginning…” Gen 1:1
Gen 1:27: The male and female. etc.
Adam and Eve are the example of the first marriage, and
they had lust problems. ( Gen 7:3, 15 ).

Genesis does use figurative language, but so do most people.
e.g. Enjoy the Sunset.
And even if Genesis 38 is taken figuratively, the figure has a clear meaning.

Nor is my exegesis of the passage in Corinthians “pure” speculation, it is based on church teaching – the pillar and foundation of truth.

In 1Cor7:1-2, Paul is explicity teaching people who are faced with a moral weakness - like Adam…
And he does assume a primary purpose of marriage in 1Cor7:14.

Paul also does not explain the reason for abstaining in order to pray. Yet, abstaining at all is avoiding conception.
That is the very core of NFP. Whether there is a little knowledge (abstaining avoids pregnancy) or a lot of knowledge (abstaining at certain times based on signs God built into the body) is immaterial. BUT, I do agree that Paul does not grant permission to use artificial contraception in marriage.

My wife’s confessor recommended that we pray to the Holy Spirit before any marital act.
There are many married couples today, mine included, who legitimately abstain while praying to God. (NFP).
e.g. I have 5 children now and am in a transitional state of work. My prayer is for the ability to raise my children. That is also a primary purpose of marriage.

 

[Lance_O]

Alan, this is really much more simple than what you’re making it. Hopefully this will straighten it out for you.

Being a Catholic, this was frustrating for me at one time, too, but then I understood the difference between NFP and contraceptives and the Church’s rationale. (I’ll be as brief as possible) The Church teaches that intercourse is a God-given gift to married couples with a two-fold purpose 1-unitive 2-procreative. These two may not be separated. Each act of intercourse must be open to new life. Contraceptives literally means against(contra) life(cept, as in conception). With any contraceptive you are actually, physically doing something chemical or barrier to make conception impossible. With contraceptives NO act of intercourse is open to life. However, with natural methods you are learning about and working with your God-given reproductive cycle to plan your family. Each act of intercourse is open to life (even if it is on a day of natural infertility) because you aren’t physically doing anything to prevent conception as you are with contraceptives. (Additionally, the Church does not teach or expect that each act of intercourse result in a pregnancy; it does teach that it is the responsibility of the couple to prayerfully plan the size of their family–another important aspect of being open to life–it is possible to use NFP with a contraceptive mentality.)

A couple that is using a natural method of family planning that has intercourse on a day of infertility is very likely not going to conceive but they are still open to life. They have not physically done anything to artificially prevent conception. They are simply working with their God-given reproductive cycle that has both fertility and infertility. The Church sees nothing wrong with using days of infertility with the intention of postponing pregnancy; all that the Church is requiring of this couple is that their acts of intercourse are open to new life (see above definition) and that they prayerfully and responsibly plan their family.

A couple that is using condoms, for example, will likely not conceive (although it is more ineffective, as you pointed out). However, they are physically doing something to artificially prevent conception. Therefore they are not open to new life. They are intentionally thwarting their God-given reproductive cycle. This is where the problem with all contraceptives lies. (And as you seem to be aware there are additional problems with methods that are more than just barriers…the abortaficient component.)

Furthermore, this couple is lying. In marriage we give ourselves 100% to the other person. In sex we give ourselves 100% to the other person. Intercourse is a renewal of our marriage covenant, giving yourself 100% to the other person. Artificial contraceptives do not allow the spouses to give themselves 100%. They’re giving everything except their fertility. And if you’re not giving 100% of yourself in intercourse you’re lying with your body.

The Catholic Church not only discourages the use of contraceptives, it forbids it as a mortal sin for these reasons, regardless of the effectiveness of the method. Effectiveness is not the criteria used by the Church to determine whether it is a licit or illicit method for postponing pregnancy.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church scborromeo.org/ccc.htm is the definitive resource for questions on the faith and what the Church teaches. It’s in there. scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2368

Hopefully this is clear and hopefully you will take a look at the online Catechism. The first link is the start page and the second link is a very relevant section in the Catechism.

Best Wishes