NFP Makes No Sense To Me

[CatholicofAgora]

Lol, I’ve got a lot of prayer to do I guess. There are so many hypothetical analogies, approaches and streams of reasoning that this thread is almost out of control.

 

[aspirant]

Like St. Paul, I think at the consnet of both partners that they should abstain for a season of prayerfulness, NOT for the intent of avoiding pregnancy. This is what this passage was written for, the strengthening of self-control, NOT to regulate births in your marriage.

Talk about false dichotomies. Wow.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

You are walking and come across a church
3 options

1. You pass by the church (abstaining)
2. You go in to pray (sexual act)
3. You go in and desecrate the church with graffiti (contraception)

I don’t really find this model comparable to the sexual act. At least, not without making a serious leap between praying and desecrating the church. Desecrating the church doesn’t prevent anything and is therefore… Just an illogical contrast to contraception. Here’s a better one:

1. You walk by the Taco Bell (abstaining)
2. You go in and order a Dorito Loco’s Taco (sexual act)
3. You run on a tred mill to burn the weight you gained (contraception)

If I look at the two models, I can’t help but feel that mine is more relatable.

Try this: walking up to a sewer manhole in the street.

Avoiding it is walking around it. Preventing falling is covering it up and walking over it. 2 different things.

Contraception is actually desecrating the act itself. The ACT is important here. When it happens is not the issue. Altering the act itself is.

Marriage is the image of Christ’s love for his church. Christ gave his whole body, completely, to His bride. There were no barriers. The ability to procreate is the thing that God has given us that is most God-like. The ability to decide when a new immortal soul will exist forever. Shutting that aspect down is an abuse to the human person.

But in both instances you’re consciously trying to reach the same objective. I could interchangably say that you’re “preventing the possibility of falling in” by walking around it, or “avoid falling in” by covering it up. We’ve already established that within the context of marriage, the intent of both NFP and contraception is not to shut down this procreative aspect but rather to save it for another time. It’s not saying we use condoms because we don’t want children, it’s saying we use condoms because we’re not ready for children. It’s not saying we’re using NFP because we don’t want children, it’s saying that we’re using NFP because we’re not ready for children. God may not have made me with a built-in condom dispenser, but he didn’t make me with a built-in box of tums, asprine, Vive-vance, and a number of other things I use to “desecrate” the “acts” of acid-reflex, headaches and Attention Deficient Disorder. I wouldn’t be taking the intimacy out of sex by using contraception anymore than by taking the pleasure out of eating a chaco-taco by running on a tredmill.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

CatholicAgora:

Like St. Paul, I think at the consnet of both partners that they should abstain for a season of prayerfulness, NOT for the intent of avoiding pregnancy. This is what this passage was written for, the strengthening of self-control, NOT to regulate births in your marriage.

Talk about false dichotomies. Wow.

I agree. To seperate the act of abstinence from the intent of personal growth prayerful observance is a false dichotomy, because you replace that with the intentions of prev… Sorry, “avoiding” pregnancy.

 

[mrs_ahs]

I don’t really find this model comparable to the sexual act. At least, not without making a serious leap between praying and desecrating the church. Desecrating the church doesn’t prevent anything and is therefore… Just an illogical contrast to contraception. Here’s a better one:

1. You walk by the Taco Bell (abstaining)
2. You go in and order a Dorito Loco’s Taco (sexual act)
3. You run on a tred mill to burn the weight you gained (contraception)

If I look at the two models, I can’t help but feel that mine is more relatable.

But in both instances you’re consciously trying to reach the same objective. I could interchangably say that you’re “preventing the possibility of falling in” by walking around it, or “avoid falling in” by covering it up. We’ve already established that within the context of marriage, the intent of both NFP and contraception is not to shut down this procreative aspect but rather to save it for another time. It’s not saying we use condoms because we don’t want children, it’s saying we use condoms because we’re not ready for children. It’s not saying we’re using NFP because we don’t want children, it’s saying that we’re using NFP because we’re not ready for children. God may not have made me with a built-in condom dispenser, but he didn’t make me with a built-in box of tums, asprine, Vive-vance, and a number of other things I use to “desecrate” the “acts” of acid-reflex, headaches and Attention Deficient Disorder. I wouldn’t be taking the intimacy out of sex by using contraception anymore than by taking the pleasure out of eating a chaco-taco by running on a tredmill.

Nope. If you change #3 to “you purge and vomit to get rid of the food you ate in order to avoid gaining weight,” then you’re starting to get the picture. There’s nothing wrong with exercising after you eat - that is in conformity with morality because you are acting responsibly to deal with the consequences of your actions. But if you binge and purge, you want the pleasure without the responsibility or the natural result of your actions. That is what contraception does.

God made the fertility cycle - it is His creation. Work around it instead of desecrating it with drugs or devices. Refrain from it if you are not ready for children at that time. You really don’t see the difference between thwarting an act in order to enjoy it and escape its natural consequences, and refraining from the act? The Church is concerned not with a plan or the number of times per month married couples engage in sex, but with EACH INDIVIDUAL ACT maintaining its dignity and its dual unitive and procreative natures. You don’t seem to understand that tab A in slot B married sex fulfills both of those natures, whether conception occurs or not.

Seriously?! Acid reflux, headaches, ADD, and eating tacos are not sacred acts that renew one’s wedding vows, nor do they do not have the potential for creating an immortal soul. It really is not about how you can make your privates feel good all the time and avoid any excess suffering or sacrifice.

 

[agapewolf]

I don’t really find this model comparable to the sexual act. At least, not without making a serious leap between praying and desecrating the church. Desecrating the church doesn’t prevent anything and is therefore… Just an illogical contrast to contraception. Here’s a better one:

1. You walk by the Taco Bell (abstaining)
2. You go in and order a Dorito Loco’s Taco (sexual act)
3. You run on a tred mill to burn the weight you gained (contraception)

If I look at the two models, I can’t help but feel that mine is more relatable.

But in both instances you’re consciously trying to reach the same objective. I could interchangably say that you’re “preventing the possibility of falling in” by walking around it, or “avoid falling in” by covering it up. We’ve already established that within the context of marriage, the intent of both NFP and contraception is not to shut down this procreative aspect but rather to save it for another time. It’s not saying we use condoms because we don’t want children, it’s saying we use condoms because we’re not ready for children. It’s not saying we’re using NFP because we don’t want children, it’s saying that we’re using NFP because we’re not ready for children. God may not have made me with a built-in condom dispenser, but he didn’t make me with a built-in box of tums, asprine, Vive-vance, and a number of other things I use to “desecrate” the “acts” of acid-reflex, headaches and Attention Deficient Disorder. I wouldn’t be taking the intimacy out of sex by using contraception anymore than by taking the pleasure out of eating a chaco-taco by running on a tredmill.

No, in the taco bell instance, it wouldn’t be using the treadmill to run it off. It would be vomiting it up.

It has NOT been established that the contraception intention isn’t to shut down the procreative aspect. That is EXACTLY what it does.

You are missing a very key point here. A person his not a soul trapped in a body. What we do with the body is what we do with the soul. The body manifests the soul-- the person. It’s not simply using a barrier, but the action itself speaks a lie.

 

[agapewolf]

Remember, intent/ends is the same, but just because it is the same does not mean they are equal means.

Someone is going to pass away from old age, or they die because someone kills them. Same ends, different means.

I had to resort to the manhole cover because the very basic idea of ends and means being different is not coming across. (Covering the manhole cover seems like a good-- that isn’t the extent the analogy is displaying). It’s merely to talk about avoiding vs preventing.

Rob a bank or earn money. Same ends, different means.

 

[thewanderer]

No, it would infact be virtuous to abstain. Like St. Paul, I think at the consnet of both partners that they should abstain for a season of prayerfulness, NOT for the intent of avoiding pregnancy. This is what this passage was written for, the strengthening of self-control, NOT to regulate births in your marriage. However, St. Paul only says this out of point-of-argument, NOT out of apostolic command, meaning that we are asking more of people than even the apostles did.

Well, see, here’s the thing, the point about abstaining not being a sin is that if there is ever an occasion where it is not sinful to abstain then that means that abstaining, in and of itself is not sinful. Can I ask if you would agree that it is moral, and a good thing for a couple to abstain, even if it put a strain on their marriage, if they had a good reason to do so?

You can say that we’re not “forcing” people to abstain, but in reality, as in actually looking to our conscience when we say this, this is exaclty what we’re doing. Just like whenever the Obama administration wasn’t “forcing” Catholic establishments to provide contraception to their employees. They were only to “provide the medicare and coverage FOR contraceptives” to their employees. It’s like saying “No, you don’t have to abstain. But if you don’t, I hope you’re open to having ten to twenty kids.” It just doesn’t feel very honest to say that we’re not forcing couples to abstain when we pretty much are.

I admitted that in reality what this amounts to is that people will have to abstain. I’m sorry if it came across as though I was just trying to split hairs to get around all this. I’m really not trying to be contentious or win an argument here, but honestly just trying to help you understand how the Church’s arguments are logical and consistent.

I guess I can see what they’re saying, but then again you can use NFP for the same reason which is permitted by the Church for the sake of “spacing” your births. I can say it’s logical, but I can’t say that it’s consistent. It all goes back to the definitions of “avoid” and “prevent.” You’re just splitting hairs at that point, as I demonstrated earlier via dictionary.com.

Just so you know, ‘spacing’ births has nothing to do with it. Technically a couple could get married, and use NFP to avoid their entire marriage to avoid children if they had legitimate reasons to do so, so long as they got married hoping to be able to have a family. I know that lots of people like to make people come back to phrase words like “spacing” as opposed to “avoiding” or talk about being ‘procreative’, or ‘open to life’ or even that NFP has a higher chance of failure as though that were why the Church allowed it, but all of these phrases end up just muddying the water and confusing people because they make it seem as though the Church is basing her teachings on the intent of the action rather than the means used.

I think you are not fully understanding what I am saying. You keep coming back to the intent/ends of abstinance to avoid vs contraception to avoid and saying that because the ends/intent are ultimately the same the Church isn’t being consistent. If the Church based its differentiation of abstinance vs contraception on the intents/ends then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the Church was being neither logical, reasonable, or consistent, but thats just not at all what the Church is saying. Let me try to put thiss another way.

First, the Church teaches that there are three aspects of an action which determine its morality, the end (or intention), the means, and the circumstances. For an act to be moral all three must be moral. If even one of these three is not moral then the entire action itself will be immoral. This is the basis for determining whether any action is moral or immoral.

Ok, next point is that the Church teaches that the intent to avoid, postpone, space or whatever other word you want to use is a neutral intention. In other words, in some circumstances this is a good intention and in some circumstances this is a bad intention. So, whenever this intention is combined with sufficient reason to avoid children it is a perfectly moral and good intention about which there is absolutely nothing sinful.

Now, if we stop at this point and compare NFP (ie abstinance) and contraception you’ll notice that there is, in fact, absolutely no difference between the two, as you have so correctly pointed out throughout this thread. And guess what? The Church agrees with you about this. Both abstinance and contraception can be used for a good intention, depending upon the circumstances. The Church absolutely agrees with you here, 100%, despite the many, many, confusing statements you will hear from Catholics which make it seem as though the Church differentiates the two based on intentions. **The Church in no way shape or form makes a difference between abstinance and contraception based on intentions or circumstances. **

(cont…)

 

[thewanderer]

(…cont)

Ok, now, the next step is the difficult one. The last step for determining whether or not an action is moral is the means used. Now so far, just based on intention and circumstances we have seen that both abstinance and contraception could be used morally or immorally, however, since all three aspects of the action must be moral for the action to be moral if the means for either of them is found to be immoral then the entire action itself will be immoral, regardless of how moral or good the intention, end, and circumstances are.

Now, NFP, to avoid, when it comes down to it, is simply abstinance. The Church does not see abstinance as something that is inherently immoral, as we have begun to discuss above, however it does see abstinance as something which requires the agreement of both spouses and/or a sufficiently serious reason to abstain from relations. (And it takes a very serious reason for one spouse to force abstinance upon the other, the Church takes the importance of sex in marriage for the sake of the union and intimacy of the couple very seriously). In fact, the Church takes this so seriously that if it saw contraception as a moral option then in many cases the Church would end up saying that in many cases the only moral option would be contraception, rather than abstinance, because of how important sexual relations are to the marital relationship.

The problem comes in when looking at the means themselves of contraception. The church teaches that it is wrong to take an action to alter the nature of ones fertility or of any particular sexual act. Now, forgetting the reasons for this principle for now, and whether or not you agree with this principle, just look at this principle itself in connection with everything else that has been explained so far. If the Church teaches that in order for an action to be moral the intention, means, and circumstances must all be moral. It also believes that while the intentions and circumstances for either NFP to avoid or contraception can be moral and good. However, it also teaches that the means of contraception is always immoral. Because of this, and its above principle that for an action to be moral all three must be moral, the only conclusion the Church can possibly draw, if it wants to be consistent, is that contraception can never be moral. Now, again, a lot of people have problems accepting this conclusion, and it is pretty much always because they do not accept the premise, for whatever reason, that the Church accepts, namely, that the means of contraception is always immoral. So it is not that the Church is being illogical or inconsistent, it is just that the Church takes up different principles and premises than you do and the conclusion the Church takes does not make sense with the premises that you (well, and others) have taken up. However, if you look at the premises which the Church herself has taken up the conclusion that contraception is always wrong is actually the only logical conclusion for the Church to come to. It is a hard teaching to accept, it is a very hard teaching to understand, but since the Church takes up the premises which she does it is, in fact, the only logical conclusion the Church could draw about contraception.

Does putting it that way at least make it easier to see the Church’s position as logical? I understand that it probably won’t have helped you at all agree with the Church, because that would take a deep examination of the means of contraception and most likely much time, study, thought, conversation and prayer. But hopefully it will at least help you see that the Church’s position is extremely consistent and logical, even if you do not agree with it.

If I am still not being clear, please let me know so that I can try to find a better way to explain this.

 

[aspirant]

But in both instances you’re consciously trying to reach the same objective.

As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Catholic Church does not teach that the end of an act is the only factor in whether that act is morally legit.

things I use to “desecrate” the “acts” of acid-reflex, headaches and Attention Deficient Disorder.

Acid reflux, headaches, and ADD are neither sacred nor acts. The Church’s teaching does not oppose medicine or artifice as such, especially those designed to preserve, support, improve, or restore the healthy function of the body and its systems. In fact, I mentioned this earlier in the thread:
"aspirant:

the Church’s teaching is not based on a simple distinction between “natural” and “artificial.” …The Church does not oppose artifice as such. Pacemakers and prosthetic limbs are artificial, but they support the healthy function of the body and its systems, and that can be very good. Sterilization and hormonal contraceptives, used for contraceptive purposes, do not: they deliberately impede or frustrate rather than assist the procreative capacity of the body.

I wouldn’t be taking the intimacy out of sex by using contraception

That would be overlaying the message “I give myself” with the contrary message “but not completely.” That does indeed detract from intimacy.

You keep coming back to the intent/ends of abstinance to avoid vs contraception to avoid and saying that because the ends/intent are ultimately the same the Church isn’t being consistent. If the Church based its differentiation of abstinance vs contraception on the intents/ends then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the Church was being neither logical, reasonable, or consistent, but thats just not at all what the Church is saying… the Church teaches that there are three aspects of an action which determine its morality, the end (or intention), the means, and the circumstances. For an act to be moral all three must be moral. If even one of these three is not moral then the entire action itself will be immoral. This is the basis for determining whether any action is moral or immoral.

Yes.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Normally, I don’t post on these kinds of threads, because I hesitate to have anyone thinking I’m judging or criticizing for having difficulties (with the concept or with its practice). But I need some closure here, and I don’t mean theologically:

I may not be a mathematician, but the numbers are not adding up, folks. Let’s take it in the opposite direction: Let’s look at fertility enhancement. There ain’t that many truly fertile days, guys and gals, unless three things are in play (a) you have the world’s most irregular cycles (b) wife is a hopelessly fertile type (c) husband has legendary sperm count.

Then, the fourth element needs to be in play: failure to be exhausted from existing family demands (i.e., other children, work, etc.) What, are some of you titans of energy? sounds as if you could harness some of that energy for alternative fuels or something.

Think about it:
When a couple is trying to get pregnant, the pressure is (especially) to have sex within a very short time period. If you fail to have it then, you have to wait until next month. You don’t have weeks in which to get pregnant, during which abstinence “puts a terrible strain on the marriage.”

The math is that there are far more infertile days than fertile days. At least that’s what my biology books tell me, what my Ob-Gyn has always told me, etc. What would make sense is that tension or artificial pressure could result if one or both of you is exhausted during all of the nonfertile days, and had the bad luck to be available to each other on only those few fertile days.

I will add that when our children were young, my husband and I had less energy for sex than before they were born, so I am indeed speaking from experience.

In any case, the math does not add up to me. And “possible” is not the same thing as likely.

Carry on…

 

[Mrc]

Here’s a few discussion questions (condoms vs NFP):

Not trying to conceive:

1. Using a condom are you preventing the body from it’s procreative purpose?
2. Using NFP are you preventing the body from it’s procreative purpose?
   1a. No. The body will still produce egg/sperm.
   2a. No. The body will still produce egg/sperm.
3. Using a condom are you preventing procreation?
4. Using Nfp are you preventing procreation?
   1a. Yes.
   2a. Yes.
5. Using a condom what is your goal?
6. Using NFP what is your goal?
   3a. To bond with my wife intimately and to not worry about a pregnancy.
   4a. To bond with my wife intimately and to not worry about a pregnancy.
7. How effective are condoms?
8. How effective is NFP?
   5a. 85%
   6a. 99.9%
9. What are you saying with your body using a condom?
10. What are you saying with your body using NFP?
    7a. I give you everything, but I would like to prevent pregnancy.
    8a. I give you everything. But only when it’s certain I won’t conceive. Other times I don’t want pregnancy, so I also don’t want any of you (or won’t give you any of me).
    (Add this one up over one cycle: NFP - Man - I give you everything, except when your body can procreate, Woman - I give you everything, except my body’s ability to procreate; Condom - Man - I give you everything except my body’s ability to procreate, Woman - I give you everything)
    With both, the couple is still open to life (perhaps more so with condoms considering their effectiveness).
11. Who controls our pregnancy using condoms?
12. Who controls our pregnancy using NFP?
    9a. God.
    10a. God.

When trying to conceive:
11. What’s different with condoms?
12. What’s different with NFP?
11a. Don’t use one.
12a. Finally! We get to have sex when it’s actually pleasurable!

Using a condom does not prevent the body from its procreative function. And condoms are less effective than NFP, in other words, you are more likely to have an “unplanned” pregnancy than with NFP. Using condoms, you would still pray monthly and determine monthly whether or not you should conceive.

The body is sexual by nature. So why hide it? Why go to all means to try to make it not sexual by wearing as modest clothes as possible? By hiding the true nature of the body, does it prevent this nature from being true? Shouldn’t we walk around naked because that’s the true nature of the body? Haven’t clothes made our society more lustful by hiding something and making it desirable? Are clothes immoral, then?

It seems that condoms are not moral by nature, but it is the morality of the person that makes the act moral / immoral. See, God makes sense. God always makes sense. Science makes sense and numbers makes sense. God’s nature makes sense and is always constant. Why, then, does it not make sense that using a condom is somehow preventing God’s will? It just doesn’t seem consistent with God’s nature. Why would it make sense to be unhappy because God says so? Isn’t it God’s will that we’re happy? Doesn’t a healthy sex life create happiness in a family?

Other contraceptives, yes. There is clearly an immorality that goes with them, but it is not the preventative action per se. It’s the messing with God’s design that makes them inherently immoral (and the fact that unwanted abortions can and do occur). Condoms, I don’t think so.

Some will reference Onan. Thing is, that he knew God’s will was to create a new life, but he specifically turned away from God and prevented it from happening. With condoms it’s different because you’re always open to life and praying for God’s will.

 

[Mrc]

Here’s a few discussion questions (condoms vs NFP):
It seems that condoms are not -]moral/-] immoral by nature, but it is the morality of the person that makes the act moral / immoral.

Sorry - fixed.

 

[agapewolf]

Restating the point in question/answer form does not argue the position any differently. It’s still wrong, as has been explained already here

 

[Em_in_FL]

UHMMMM… No offense, but HOW??? I don’t see how having sex specifically when a woman is infertile is “pro-creative” i.e. “ordered towards procreation.” That’s like intentionally striking out in baseball and saying you were trying to hit a home run! You could say, “Well I was on the plate. I swung the bat, and I was “open” to hit the ball. But… I just felt like waiting until AFTER the catcher caught it to swing the bat.”

Again, the “rule”, in laymen’s terms, is that the husband must finish inside the wife.
A fancier way of saying it is that the act of sex must be done in a way that procreation could occur.
It doesn’t say procreation has to occur.
It says the ACT must be DONE in a certain WAY.
That’s the only rule.

Your comparison to baseball doesn’t fit because you don’t “have” to try to hit a home run - aka, you don’t HAVE to try to conceive a child with every act.

Those who are permanently infertile can still have sex in the proper way. They don’t “have” to try to conceive in order for the act of sex to be considered complete.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here’s a few discussion questions (condoms vs NFP):

Not trying to conceive:

1. Using a condom are you preventing the body from it’s procreative purpose?
2. Using NFP are you preventing the body from it’s procreative purpose?
   1a. No. The body will still produce egg/sperm.
   2a. No. The body will still produce egg/sperm.
3. Using a condom are you preventing procreation?
4. Using Nfp are you preventing procreation?
   1a. Yes.
   2a. Yes.

Preventing procreation from happening is not the same as altering the act.
The ACT of sex must be done in a certain WAY… the ACT must be procreative and unitive.
The RESULTS of the act (conception - which depends on fertility) doesn’t matter.

1. Using a condom what is your goal?
2. Using NFP what is your goal?
   3a. To bond with my wife intimately and to not worry about a pregnancy.
   4a. To bond with my wife intimately and to not worry about a pregnancy.
3. How effective are condoms?
4. How effective is NFP?
   5a. 85%
   6a. 99.9%

The “goal” of avoiding conception may or may not be good/bad. Intent does matter.
Theoretically NFP can be used for selfish purposes. The teaching is that the decision to use NFP must be prayerful and for unselfish reasons.

Effectivity doesn’t matter. If you have a very VALID reason to avoid conception, then obviously you’d want something effective.
BOTH INTENT and MEANS matter in this conversation.
INTENT can be good when using a condom - sure… but the MEANS is clearly against the procreative and unitive nature of the act of sex within marriage.

1. What are you saying with your body using a condom?
2. What are you saying with your body using NFP?
   7a. I give you everything, but I would like to prevent pregnancy.
   8a. I give you everything. But only when it’s certain I won’t conceive. Other times I don’t want pregnancy, so I also don’t want any of you (or won’t give you any of me).
   (Add this one up over one cycle: NFP - Man - I give you everything, except when your body can procreate, Woman - I give you everything, except my body’s ability to procreate; Condom - Man - I give you everything except my body’s ability to procreate, Woman - I give you everything)
   With both, the couple is still open to life (perhaps more so with condoms considering their effectiveness).

7a doesn’t give “everything”… clearly a denial is taking place.
It’s ALL or NOTHING.

1. Who controls our pregnancy using condoms?
2. Who controls our pregnancy using NFP?
   9a. God.
   10a. God.

God isn’t forcing you to use a condom… you are going against His design (which already allows for infertile phases for sex while there is need to avoid conception).

When trying to conceive:
11. What’s different with condoms?
12. What’s different with NFP?
11a. Don’t use one.
12a. Finally! We get to have sex when it’s actually pleasurable!

Sex at any time of a healthy female cycle is indeed pleasurable!! VERY. If it’s not, there is something probably hormonally out of whack and it’s okay to seek medical help to correct that.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

The position of the pope is one of a prophet and not one of the head of a philosophy department. His teaching doesn’t have to make complete sense in order for it to be valid. If the teaching doesn’t make sense to you, then perhaps it is better to simply stop asking questions and accept it as it is.

 

[Em_in_FL]

It seems that condoms are not moral by nature, but it is the morality of the person that makes the act moral / immoral. See, God makes sense. God always makes sense. Science makes sense and numbers makes sense. God’s nature makes sense and is always constant. Why, then, does it not make sense that using a condom is somehow preventing God’s will? It just doesn’t seem consistent with God’s nature. Why would it make sense to be unhappy because God says so? Isn’t it God’s will that we’re happy? Doesn’t a healthy sex life create happiness in a family?

I’m going to quote the Catechism here:

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.

OKAY - so that’s INTENT… we agree that INTENT is important. You can have good intent when approaching barrier use, and use can have bad intent when approaching NFP use…
INTENT is definitely an important aspect here…
BUT, the Catechism goes on… and this speaks to the MEANS:

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.156
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”157

BOTH **intent **and **means **must be satisfied for the practice of avoiding conception to be moral.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
**Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle… involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.**160

 

[Mrc]

Em_in_FL, I understand this stuff quite well.

But there is a good argument for condoms. Even if you read the CCC.

to render procreation impossible

NFP does this 99.9% effectively. Condoms only 85%. Thus, condoms do not render procreation impossible.

Being selfish in a sexual act is independent of using condoms (or NFP).

And, responsible parenthood and the principles of NFP are still upheld if condoms are used responsibly and the couple is always seeking God’s will. I would also say that abstaining on fertile days is more of a positive refusal to be open to life than having sex with a condom on fertile days.

PS: We have never used a condom or any other form of artificial contraception… Based on my knowledge of NFP and the CCC, my argument has plenty of ground. Now with experience, it makes more sense.

 

[agapewolf]

Em_in_FL, I understand this stuff quite well.

But there is a good argument for condoms. Even if you read the CCC.

NFP does this 99.9% effectively. Condoms only 85%. Thus, condoms do not render procreation impossible.

Being selfish in a sexual act is independent of using condoms (or NFP).

And, responsible parenthood and the principles of NFP are still upheld if condoms are used responsibly and the couple is always seeking God’s will. I would also say that abstaining on fertile days is more of a positive refusal to be open to life than having sex with a condom on fertile days.

PS: We have never used a condom or any other form of artificial contraception… Based on my knowledge of NFP and the CCC, my argument has plenty of ground. Now with experience, it makes more sense.

NFP doesn’t “render” anything. There is nothing to “Render”

God is doing the “rendering” by providing infertile times.