Replies

Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative. In Vitro is only procreative. (The opposite problem of contraception).

NFP clearly violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of this principal. The goal of NFP is to have sexual relations without conception, correct? No, NFP is not 100% successful in preventing conception, but neither is any artificial form of BC. It's only a matter of degree. Yes, I realize that OCP's can prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, essentially an abortion; this is a separate matter. But other methods such as a condom, a diaphragm, or spermicidal foam do not have this effect. These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?

You wrote: "[The]condom, diaphragm, or spermicidal foam do not have this [abortive] effect. These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?"

It's not an inconsistency; not if you look at in terms of means and ends.

First of all, it's not inherently wrong to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy. Under some circumstances, it's even a moral obligation. So if the "end" is morally OK --- which we agree could be the case --- then we have to consider the "means." (Obvious examples: "we're getting an abortion" would be an immoral means. So would "we're confining our sexual expression to video pornography & masturbation.")

Contraceptive action is wrong because it violates the Creator's design for the body. It actively opposes something which is a good healthy part of the design (fertility) as if it were a defect or a disease.

NFP isn't wrong because there's no contraceptive action. The couple is not thwarting, but cooperating with the periodic fertile/infertile female cycle.

Please understand that there's a huge moral difference between "acting in harmony" with your sexual design, and "sabotaging" it.

NFP means abstaining to avoid pregnancy. Avoiding pregnancy can be a morally un-objectionable end. Abstaining --- as long as it is mutually agreed upon, and for a sufficiently grave reason --- is a morally un-objectionable means.

"These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?"

There is no inconsistency. Church dogma says that every sex act between husband and wife should be "open to procreation". In NFP, the couple abstains from sexual activity during fertile periods. If there is no sex act, there is no sin. On the other hand, if there "is" a sex act, and it is NOT "open to procreation", then there is sin.

"The goal of NFP is to have sexual relations without conception, correct?"

You make a good point that the ends are the same when NFP and contraception are used to avoid conception. But with NFP, the goal is not always to do so. If you wanted to reduce NFP to one goal, you could say that its goal is to educate couples to determine the fertile period of the woman. NFP can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy. It never stops fertility or forces infertility in order to have sexual relations without conception. Instead NFP sits back in awe and understanding of the potential, until both the husband and wife desire to accept what fertility may bring.

If the couple's goal is to avoid conception, NFP observes and if infertile, allows sexual relations. If on the other hand the woman is fertile, NFP users choose not to have sexual relations. NFP does not change the fertility or infertility - in order to allow sexual relations, regardless. It is love with respect for the responsibility that love brings/allows.

For example in the Byrds old song of "Turn, Turn, Turn" they sing along with NFP users "A time to plant, a time to reap. ... A time you may embrace, A time to refrain from embracing." But if the Byrds were to sing this song with contraception users it would go "It's always time to plant. And you never need to reap, unless you choose to. ... A time you may embrace, A time you may embrace again."

The end (not having a baby) does not justify all means. NFP violates neither the spirit or the law.

In your marriage, during the time your wife was/is fertile, do you/have you always have sexual intercourse with her? If not, acrd to your logic, you are doing the same thing as those who use contraceptives