Ok, klossg, I was about to drop out of this, but you're misunderstanding me. When I agree that love rejects nothing potential or actual in one given act of non-conceptive NFP there is a lot I am NOT agreeing to.
I do not agree that NFP does not impede love. If there is strong reason to think that NFP may not work and strong reason not to conceive; if there is strong reason to fear conception, so that the odds of NFP aren't good enough; if the infertile time corresponds with difficulties in response and desire; if waiting leads to frustration that reaches harmful levels - THEN NFP IMPEDES LOVE.
THAT IS MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHURCH'S PROHIBITION. NFP IMPEDES LOVE. No couple who's struggling, whose love is impeded, needs to hear about monthly honeymoons or read Fr. Euteneuer going on about "health and happiness" - does he tell a hungry beggar, "Gosh, they're having a feast at the Hilton?"
Maybe no circumstances could impede perfect love - marital love so great that the sexual aspect was just pure lagniappe.
Love is still love even when it isn't perfect. When my son is endlessly rude, unhelpful and ungrateful and throws pimples on top of that, it impedes my love. If I had perfect love, it wouldn't. But I still love him, even though my love isn't perfect. And he loves me.
As means, treatments that cause temporary or permanent sterility are not intrinsically evil. A woman might use birth control pills in the treatment of endometriosis or polycystic ovaries, perhaps with the hope of eventually becoming pregnant after treatment - or simply for the sake of her health. She might have her uterus removed if she has bad fibroids, or her ovaries removed if she is at high risk for ovarian cancer.
You could arguably use condoms for health protection - NFP for non-conception AND condoms against unpredictable herpes flare-ups.
As an end, the goal of having intercourse but not conceiving is acceptable to the defenders of NFP. For the duration of the time that they practice non-conceptive NFP a couple does reject fertility - the likelihood of conception.
So you have means that are acceptable, at least for some ends. You have an end that is acceptable. Put the means and ends together - are they proportionate? In many cases, certainly. Then you get into direct and indirect causes and consequences - what is willed and what is merely forseen.
What is willed? I WANT to be fertile - I want to carry a baby from conception through healthy birth. It doesn't look like I can have that. I don't want to come close to dying again, don't want to lose a beloved baby again when she's too little to live, don't want to see my children terrified of losing their mother and losing another sister or brother and asking why God didn't answer their prayers.
Anyone who wants to argue with me about what is willed can go...
I'm done here. No more.
Mrs VS
That goes without saying. What else is there in discourse?
"Don't you think it is a good idea to just wait for a reply from VS or someone who will provide a "logical argument"?"
OK, I read this 8 times and I still don't understand what are you really asking.
"Self evident is the fact that VS agreed that NFP does not impede love in any sexual act. No such "logical argument" or statement has been made in regards to barrier contraception. We've been pretty open and honest through out this discussion. There is no reason not to continue."
Well I'm not going to put words into VS's mouth, but I think the point she has succeeding in arguing (atleast to me) is that no convincing argument has been offered that shows barrier contraception is implicitly sinful. I also don't think anyone has impugned anyone as not being honest if that is what you are implying in your last two sentences.