Before I go on I want to you undestand I am NOT trying to pick a fight. I'm just a person struggling mightily with this teaching. Allright then......
"In contrast, the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy does not separate sex and conception. It simply avoids both, for a particular time."
That is untrue! NFP allows couples to engage on a very calculating method....the pleasure of love-making WITHOUT the probability of conception. Yes, I know there is a time where there is a cease and desist. But there is also a time where the pleasure of love-making is engaged WITHOUT the chance of conception. And it is here that I struggle mightily with the Catholic teaching. There are couples who engage in sex while practicing birth-control and become pregnant and go on to have their children accordingly. NFP'ers brag about the effectiveness of their method. Think about that for a moment.....NFP practitioners brag about the effectiveness of their method over and above the "other" forbidden methods. They are essentially bragging about the ability to NOT BRING LIFE INTO THE WORLD!
So? The Church does not forbid enjoyng sex within marriage when the chance of pregnancy is ordinarily nil. The Church does not forbid from exercising prudent judgement and even praise such effective judgement. What it does forbid is
(1) any gesture of disrespect or exclusion of God, especially in matter where God plays a pivotal role;
(2) any violation of the commandment to be fruitful over the course of marital life, -- that is, it forbids deliberate childnessness.
Dear Prolifeconservative,
Between NFP and artificial means, it doesn't have to do with intention, but rather it has to do with the inherent nature of the METHOD.
That's why the analogy of the dieter versus the bulimic.
It's tough to fault the dieter for trying to shed a few pounds by eating a little less.
Nonetheless, that we accept the worthiness of dieting does not mean we must accept the worthiness of bulimia.
As for folks who use NFP to NEVER have children, well, we'd call a dieter who diets to extreme excess an anorexic, which is also a disordered state. The INTENTION is also important, and for the anorexic, the intention has gone beyond what is healthy.
Intention is important, but using means that are not intrinsically evil is equally important.
sitetest
If you think that's true, then you've never tried to figure the conception date of a child, and ended up saying "Dang it - there's no way ... but here it is anyway!" There is *always* a possibility of conception if a couple is (a) not infertile for some medical reason, and (b) not deliberately preventing conception through barriers, chemicals, etc.
View my profile page, and note my Sally (the guileless blonde, holding flowers, sitting with her grandfather.) There is *always* a possibility of conception.
Everyone is discussing very well, just adding a little 02.
With NFP, there is always the possibility that the wife's cycle may be a little different this month... an egg may get ripe a little later or earlier, sometimes symptoms are a tad ambiguous, some sperm may be extra vigorous, etc. There is always the POSSIBLITY of life.
I am surprised that you are still confused.
What you're saying is objectively untrue. NFP'ers have no more ability than any other non-contracepting couple to engage in "the pleasure of love-making WITHOUT the probability of conception" -- a woman using NFP has exactly the same number of infertile days in a month as a woman not using NFP.
The only difference is that the couple on NFP chooses to (a) discover when their fertile time is; and (b) abstain during that fertile time. They aren't "having sex without making a baby" anymore than anyone else is; they are simply not having sex when conception is more likely.
They are essentially bragging about the ability to NOT BRING LIFE INTO THE WORLD!
Are people who are single, chaste, and happy also "bragging about the ability to NOT BRING LIFE INTO THE WORLD"? Like NFP'ers, they also aren't having sexual relations during their fertile days. (In their case, they aren't having sexual relations during their infertile days, either.)
A basic principle of Catholic moral theology is that both the end and the means to bring about that end must be in accord with the moral law. "Not having babies" in some circumstances is a morally licit end. NFP is a morally licit means to that end; ABC is not.
In any case, if you're really a "diehard Catholic," you understand that the Church is the oracle of God, and you ought to trust what the Magisterium has said on the topic.
Why should enjoying the marriage act with your spouse during the non-procreative times be a problem? Remember, God created the process so that the man and woman could become one. Women are only able to become pregnant during a limited time frame. God made us that way, so why shouldn't we use that gift to express our love for our spouse during those non-fertile times? I frankly don't see what the problem is.