Replies

I don't think that you want to say that the regulation of birth is evil in and of itself. God created the body to naturally regulate birth in its own way. God looked upon this creation and called it good, so you wouldn't want to say regulation of birth, per se, is evil.

I do understand what you are saying. I am more playing (pardon the phrase) devil's advocate. If the stated goals of sexual relations among married couples are two-fold, procreative and unitive, how can you KNOWINGLY bypass the procreative goal? You are trying to deny the possibility of procreation, which is precisely the reason given to why artificial means are deemed intrinsically evil.

You are trying to deny the possibility of procreation, which is precisely the reason given to why artificial means are deemed intrinsically evil.

That's not why contraception is considered evil. There is nothing intrinsically evil about postponing conception. What is intriscially evil about contraception is the fact that it sterilizes the act of love between a husband and wife. Spouses are called to love in the image and likeness of the Father. That is, with a life giving love, full and complete. They are called to love one another completely and totally. With a sterilized sexual act, the couple does not love each other totally. They love each other up to a point. They do not love each other with a life giving love. If a couple does use a natural means of postponing conception, then they still accept each other completely, including their fertility. And they still love one another with a life giving love, there is nothing different between the love expressed between them then, and when a child is created. That's why contraception is intrinsically evil. It's not because a baby is not conceived.

Kerretarded,

You say: I do understand what you are saying. I am more playing (pardon the phrase) devil's advocate. If the stated goals of sexual relations among married couples are two-fold, procreative and unitive, how can you KNOWINGLY bypass the procreative goal? You are trying to deny the possibility of procreation, which is precisely the reason given to why artificial means are deemed intrinsically evil.

Forgive my mid discussion interjection ...

Is your decision at this point ... should I use NFP or Contraception? If so, maybe looking at it from a very practical angle will bring the decision closer to your five senses (or is it six).

My wife and I use NFP. Regardless of the moralness of using NFP, it is not as "easy" for us in comparison to contraception. Maybe this goes without saying but having intercourse with one's spouse is much more pleasurable than not having intercourse. This is especially true, if like Austin Power says you are really "RaNdY, baby!" In short abstinence is less active sexually than not abstaining. At least that is how I feel when my wife and I are abstaining. I am not sure that is how everyone would feel. There are people for whom denial is a major turn on and it might actually be better than actual sexual activity.

In other words, avoiding pregnancy is much easier while not having sex. At the same time though, not having sex is harder than having sex. Especially when lying in the same bed with one's fantastic spouse!

The means are of the utmost importance when we are talking about sex and morality. I mean when the aim is solely not to have a child outside of wedlock, it is much more moral to abstain from having sex with your neighbor's spouse, than to have contraceptive sex with your neighbor's spouse. And depending upon the looks of your neighbors' spouses, it is also just as hard or harder to abstain. (Well in most cases. I admit that a some cases it would actually be easier.)