I could split the hairs again in your post to me. I am not going there anymore. I will just remain utterly confused on this one teaching of the Catholic Church.
As I said in my opening post, I think the spiritual difference between NFPer's and those practicing artificial birth control are very, very minute. The bottom line for me, they both are INTENT on preventing a pregnancy/bringing life into the world at a particular time in their lives. The method by which they accomplish this is, at least to me, simply splitting hairs.
Your intuition on this point is very accurate. While it's true that NFP and artificial contraception use different methods, it's really splitting hairs to distinguish between them in most cases, as you point out.
In contrast to the false distinction between "natural" versus "artificial" methods of birth control, the true distinction is between the Catholic approach to new life and the non-Catholic approach. The Catholic approach means "willingly to accept from God children in whatever number He chooses to send them." This requires real faith and true submission to God's divine providence. It means putting God in charge of my life, rather than myself. It means placing spiritual values above material values. It requires a complete revolution in my way of thinking, believing and living.
NFP, in contrast, only requires me to trade my pills for a basal thermometer and some graph paper.
The morality of human acts is judged based first on whether the end is worthy, neutral, or unworthy, and then whether the means used to achieve the end are worthy, neutral, or unworthy. The intent of a married coupld to not have children is a neutral end. It may or may not be acceptable depending upon the circumstances. The means of accomplishing this end must be at least neutral, and preferrably worthy.
The Catholic Church has ruled that it is unworthy to accomplish the end of avoiding a pregnancy by use of artifical methods, since this involves the act of giving in to unbridled lust and the frustration of a natural act.
The Catholic Church has also ruled that it is worthy to accomplish the end of avoiding a pregnancy by abstaining, since this tends to bring the sexual appertite under the control of right reason.
I don't understand why you cannot see this difference.
I agree with you on the minute difference. The way NFP is often presented is at odds with it's intended use. Classes are given in Pre-Cana and they act like it's just a pill substitute. Unless you are following in taxchick's footsteps, you are committing a grave sin in the Catholic Church.
You cannot use NFP to avoid pregnancy for any reason other than a "grave" one. Illness, financial strain, etc.
Using NFP just because you don't want more that 3 or 4 kids is just as sinful as using a condom.
(And I don't abide by this practice, though I have studied it. I have my hands full with the 3 boys I have. Any more I know I couldn't parent they way I would want. I know that's not a good enough excuse, but I'll have to deal with it in the hereafter.)