What do we do when there are too many people on the planet?

[Rau]

There’s no getting around the fact that NFP is a form of birth control. It’s just a natural form.

No one wants to “get around” that. Avoiding sex is a form of “birth control” too. Avoiding pregnancy is not by definition immoral. It may be wise, prudent and responsible. The only argument is about means. The church simply says - sexual acts are not to be “messed with”.

So someone has to argue why a natural kind is good and an unnatural kind is bad.

The only acceptable natural kind is to abstain during relevant times.

If a person does not see a wrong in contraception or will not accept the Church’s teaching authority on this point, so be it. But we should not be having to debate whether NFP = contraception.

 

[Rau]

I could be wrong, but i think it was Pope Benedict who said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.

Not what he said as far as I can recollect. He suggested the act might indicate a move toward a concern for the well being of the “prostitute’s” partner. I can’t recall whether the context was homosexual or heterosexual acts.

 

[petra22]

prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.”

Here’s the rub… no sexual intercourse takes place in fertile times in NFP!

 

[IWantGod]

If a person does not see a wrong in contraception or will not accept the Church’s teaching authority on this point, so be it. But we should not be having to debate whether NFP = contraception.

There is nothing wrong with debate. And for a great many people it is not reasonably clear at all why condom use is considered intrinsically evil regardless of whether or not they are obedient to the Church. It appears unreasonable.

But you’re right to point out that the Church Authority has the last word on the matter, regardless of what we think about it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.”

Here’s the rub… no sexual intercourse takes place in fertile times in NFP!

That is correct!

It’s very very deliberately withheld for the specific purpose of avoiding pregnancy (which makes it clearly contraceptive as the word is defined outside Catholic sources. ).

 

[Vonsalza]

Do you think you can best determine…
…church doctrine doesn’t evolve with dictionary editions.

I’m not determining anything. And most would balk at the suggestion that the definition of common words falls under the purview of any particular faith on this planet.

But we’ve established the caveat that “contraception” is more narrowly defined by some Catholics than by, say, Oxford dictionary.

Which is fine!

It is quite plain that NFP is not within the scope of what the church teaches is wrong, and which she calls “contraception”.

As its purpose is to deliberately frustrate conception (making it clearly “contraceptive”), I think here is where there’s a disconnect.

It may just very well be considered a necessary gray-area that prevents the complete rejection of Catholic sexual doctrine by reproductive-age families as opposed to the current rejection by “only” 85-97% of them in the west (depending on what study you read).

The church… …opposes only those that interfere with actual sexual acts - that disrupt the ordering of those acts.

Sure. Any many folks interpret the deliberate withholding of sex during fertile periods because of that increased fertility as a “disordering” toward contraception. These folks just apparently aren’t Catholic. Or at least, good Catholics.

But again, the Catholic Church clearly defines certain words and phrases differently than is commonly encountered outside of it.

And for the umpteenth time, this is fine. We just need to be open about it.

I don’t know the basis of your position in this debate. May I say your responses seem to suggest not a lack of capacity to understand, but a lack of willingness to give up a hobbyhorse.

The crutch of being a cradle-protestant and an American, I suppose. “Because they say so” is difficult for me to submit to when I see it as being in fairly open conflict with reason.

Often I find that those who will not budge from the “NFP is contraception” position make that claim so that they can persuade themselves that contraception is acceptable because it is not really different than NFP which the Church accepts.

And, in fairness, I think folks that are incapable of considering that NFP may possibly be contraceptive as commonly defined are displaying text-book symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

 

[vz71]

I was taught a lesson in logic and truth years ago that seems appropriate here.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg.
The answer: 4.
It does not matter what you call the tail, it is not a leg.

Likewise here.
It does not matter what people claim nfp to be, it is not a sin. Trying to claim it so because a word may have a different meaning to some is both illogical and dishonest.

 

[vz71]

And, in fairness, I think folks that are incapable of considering that NFP may possibly be contraceptive as commonly defined are displaying text-book symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

Is it your intent to claim NFP a sin because you utilize words differently then the church?

 

[IWantGod]

Likewise here.

It does not matter what people claim nfp to be, it is not a sin. Trying to claim it so because a word may have a different meaning to some is both illogical and dishonest.

The problem with this response is that i see no evidence of anyone arguing for the sinfulness of nfp on this thread. Please correct me if i’m wrong.

 

[vz71]

It is a logical understanding given this thread has both quoted church authorities and teaching condemning contraception while also claiming NFP to be contraception.

 

[Rau]

And for a great many people it is not reasonably clear at all why condom use is considered intrinsically evil

That’s not a debate that concerns me. The absurd debate is the one that wants to tell the church what the church deems contraception and wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

It is a logical understanding given this thread has both quoted church authorities and teaching condemning contraception while also claiming NFP to be contraception.

Then you misunderstood. It happens. What the church condemns is unnatural forms of birth control. And it is not unreasonable to say that NFP is a natural form of contraception

In other words they don’t condemn these things because the word contraception is labeled on them, but rather what they are condemning is unnatural interference with our sexual nature becuase sex involves the potential production of new life…

 

[vz71]

We shall see.

 

[Elf01]

What the church condemns is unnatural forms of birth control. And it is not unreasonable to say that NFP is a natural form of contraception

Not quite, coitus interruptus is forbidden and would be natural. What the Church forbids is interference with the marital act.

 

[Rau]

As its purpose is to deliberately frustrate conception (making it clearly “contraceptive”), I think here is where there’s a disconnect.

Lets then be sure to point out that chaste single people, and married people feeling tired “deliberately frustrate conception”.

Any many folks interpret the deliberate withholding of sex during fertile periods because of that increased fertility as a “disordering” toward contraception. These folks just apparently aren’t Catholic. Or at least, good Catholics.

Disordering of what? They simply decide whether to have sex in light of their judgement about the consequences. No, they might be perfectly good Catholics. They misunderstand a church doctrine, but do nothing wrong.

But again, the Catholic Church clearly defines certain words and phrases differently than is commonly encountered outside of it.

Arguably so. The word “marriage” might be one such word. So what? Examine the Church’s documents and what she teaches is clear. It is undeniable many do not, or do not want to, accept it.

And, in fairness, I think folks that are incapable of considering that NFP may possibly be contraceptive as commonly defined are displaying text-book symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

Who cares what “contraceptive” might “commonly” be thought to mean? The dictionary is not the guiding light as to what the church teaches. You are fully aware of what the church teaches and can choose to accept what it says is moral and immoral, or draw you own line.

NFP uses information to decide whether sexual intercourse is more or less likely to lead to pregnancy. It guides the decision to engage in the marital act.

Contraception is a measure intended to change or frustrate the natural outcome of the marital act.

They are different deeds (means), but may share a common goal. The thing is - that goal is not wrong.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

And, in fairness, I think folks that are incapable of considering that NFP may possibly be contraceptive as commonly defined are displaying text-book symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

Is it your intent to claim NFP a sin because you utilize words differently then the church?

I claim that NFP is contraceptive as the word is defined by virtually anyone not ideologically inclined to tamper with the definition.

 

[Rau]

It is a logical understanding given this thread has both quoted church authorities and teaching condemning contraception while also claiming NFP to be contraception.

More likely is that some want to justify contraception by claiming (erroneously) it is no different than NFP (which the church allows when here are just reasons to avoid/defer pregnancy).

 

[TK421]

Can the principle of double effect work for over-population?

No because one may simply refrain from intercourse.

In a pregnancy, in a theoretical case where it is conclusively believed that both the mother and the child will die, a medical procedure resulting in either the death of the mother or the death of the child is morally permissible via double effect, but it wouldn’t apply in the case of contraception here.

 

[IWantGod]

More likely is that some want to justify contraception by claiming (erroneously) it is no different than NFP (which the church allows when here are just reasons to avoid/defer pregnancy).

But this is the issue. Forget the idea that people want to change church teaching; its irrelevant. What people want to know is why is it any different.

I can see why taking a pill that will kill the embryo is wrong. It makes sense. But, beyond the fact of it being unnatural, why is it wrong to use a condom. why does the sperm have to go inside in order for it to be good if condoms and nfp is working to the same end?

 

[Vonsalza]

Lets then be sure to point out that chaste single people, and married people feeling tired “deliberately frustrate conception”.

As a principle of double effect sure.

However, conflating these with the deliberate timing of sex based on female cyclical fertility is unambiguously deceptive.

They misunderstand a church doctrine, but do nothing wrong.

If contraception is wrong because “Contraception separates the unitive from the pro-creative”, folks practicing NFP are absolutely contracepting.

Who cares what “contraceptive” might “commonly” be thought to mean?

Because if the meaning of words like “contraception” are as meaningless as some need it to be in order to preserve their views, then communication slides toward meaninglessness.
The Catholic Church is a tremendous and wonderful authority on this Earth.

It doesn’t, however, hold dominion over human language.

You are fully aware of what the church teaches…

As I think the Church has an obvious logical inconsistency here and you apparently don’t, I’m obviously not “aware” in the same way you are.

I think my emotional attachment might be insufficient to “see” the “logic”.

NFP uses information to decide whether sexual intercourse is more or less likely to lead to pregnancy. It guides the decision to engage in the marital act.

Right on. It’s a deliberate effort to frustrate procreation.

Contraception is a measure intended to change or frustrate the natural outcome of the marital act.

Right on. NFP attempts this very feat.

They are different deeds (means), but may share a common goal. The thing is - that goal is not wrong.

Separating “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of sex isn’t wrong per Catholic teaching? What?