Replies

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.

First of all, it's not inherently wrong to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy.

I was challenging klossg's assertion that "Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative." NFP is the deliberate act of abstinence during fertile periods, reserving sex for infertile periods. Thus, "every sex act" is not intentionally procreative. The intent of sex during the nonfertile periods, then, is for reasons other than procreative. The fact that there is no "artificial" barrier to contraception seems to me to be a distinction without meaning. It seems to me that God looks at the intent, not form. If sex with the intent of not conceiving is sinful, means (timing vs device) is irrelevant. But, that's one of the reasons I am no longer Catholic. Obviously you see no inconsistency. I'm happy it works for you.