Here is a Biblical argument I developed some time before. It should be suitable for any Christian. Unfortunately, these are mere notes (from an earlier debate on this forum), rather than a well-polished tract, but I hope they are useful.
(A)
Mark 7:20-23 (Douay Rheims)
20 But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.
21 For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.
(B)
That word “fornications” in verse 21 is porneiai. It is a rather broad term that is often alternately translated “adultery” or “sexual immorality.”
Similarly, “lasciviousness” in verse 22 is aselgeia. It also is a broad term alternately translated “lewdness,” “debauchery” or “lust.” Particularly, this is a
self-indulgent variation.
Combined with the explicit reference to adultery (moicheiai for those now expecting Greek), Jesus warns against sexual sin 3 times in a list of only 12 terms that he calls “evil thoughts”.
(C)
Okay, now let’s have a look at contraception (there is no direct translation into Koine Greek for that word that I am aware of).
Way back in post #1, you define contraception:
I answer that, what is meant by “contraception” is a method invented by man in order to reduce the chances of pregnancy.
Unfortunately, this definition is incomplete. NFP is also a method invented by man in order to reduce the chance of pregnancy. Yet, NFP is fully endorsed and supported by the Church.
Let us therefore distinguish. Contraception allows a couple to seek sexual gratification while avoiding pregnancy. NFP allows a couple to avoid pregnancy by periodically abstaining.
Since actions come from the soul, a couple who choose contraception are choosing their pleasure above the personal issues that would preclude pregnancy. The action is objectively lascivious even if their reason for avoiding pregnancy is just.
Contrarily, a couple who practice NFP are choosing concern for the issues that preclude pregnancy above their pleasure. There is nothing objectively wrong with the inaction so long as the couple are in agreement (1 Corinthians 7:5).
(D)
My argument in posts (A)-(C) is in answer to the assertion in your thesis that Church teaching on contraception is primarily concerned with discipline, inferring that the moral argument is a derivation of the disciplinary teaching. My argument is that the reverse is the case. Namely, that the teaching is primarily moral in nature and that disciplinary teachings are merely manifestations of the deeper moral teaching. The core of my argument is exegetical in nature due to high barriers I perceived in the course of dialog. Specifically, an aversion to accept as final any statement other than one made by our Savior, Himself. I sought to entirely limit the argument to definition and application. The exegesis is already complete so what follows is mainly a guide to understanding it (the whole thing is [copied above]; I have [referenced] specific posts as needed).
The beginning of Mark 7 shows Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for their emphasis of discipline over the commandments. After rebuking them, he explains the teaching with the passage quoted in post (A). Plainly, Jesus is more concerned with what comes from inside the heart than that which is outside only.
The list of sins that Jesus gives to his apostles at the conclusion of the passage do not refer to specific actions. Rather, this is a conceptual list akin to the “Seven Deadly Sins.” I selected two particular sins from that list for definition in post (B). Porneiai is demonstrated to refer broadly to sexual sin while aselgeia is demonstrated to refer to self-serving (sexual) sin. I chose, at this time, to limit the exegesis to aselgeia because it seems more straightforward than the connection to porneiai. (NOTE: I do think that contraception can be shown to be porneiai through Natural Law-based analysis. Indeed, my initial personal reason for avoiding contraception follows such reasoning. However, that route did not seem expedient for our purposes in this thread,)
At that point, I encountered a difficulty in that your given definition of contraception lacked precision and could be applied equally to practices that are condemned and those which are allowed. Thus, I started post (C) with refinement and separation of the two categories.
The first subset, which I continued to call contraception, includes artificial means (barriers, drugs) and those techniques (withdrawal, oral and manual stimulation, etc) which couples use to engage in sexual activity even during the fertile time, yet without the chance of pregnancy. I expressed this with the definition: Contraception allows a couple to seek sexual gratification while avoiding pregnancy.
The second subset, which I now call NFP, includes any method of determining the time of fertility in order for the couple to avoid sexual activity during that time. This is permitted by the Church. This is expressed by the definition: NFP allows a couple to avoid pregnancy by periodically abstaining.
Having defined contraception and NFP thus, I then sought to apply the words of Jesus to each. Contraception, being self-gratifying, is clearly included in the class of sin that Jesus calls aselgeia. NFP, by not being self-gratifying, does not fall under that sin.
