★ When Should You Have Babies?
Apr 10th, 2009 by Ben
My 4th year project is about families and children.
I’m asking questions like: How long into a Christian couple’s marriage ought they conceive? How many children should Christians have? Should they space them out? When should they stop having kids, if ever?
This was all started by my reading of Christopher Ash’s excellent book Marriage: Sex in the Service of God, which I’ve mentioned very briefly before.
As you can imagine, there’s a fair bit of “literature” on this topic. Most of it though, doesn’t seem to be particularly theological, by which I mean that it doesn’t seem to have deep foundations of well-considered biblical thinking. Ash’s book, on the other hand, is an example of serious scholarship, as he applies Oliver O’Donovan’s outline for evangelical ethics from Resurrection and Moral Order to marriage.
One example of such a book is Sam and Bethany Torode’s 2002 book Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception.
They were very in their early twenties and relatively newly married when they wrote it, and basically they advocated “Natural Family Planning” (NFP) as the God-honouring ‘contraception’ for Christian married couples. NFP uses the woman’s menstrual cycle as a determiner of when the couple ought to have sex, assuming they don’t want to have children at that point. When the woman is least fertile, that’s when you have sex.
The book was widely praised by Roman Catholics, and widely denounced by Protestants. The Torodes wanted to honour God and their marriage, and wanted to serve each other with their bodies, as Christian married couples ought to. Unfortunately, it seemed like an example of youthful enthusiasm leading them to rush into publishing an ill-conceived (sorry) thesis.
This became startlingly clear when in 2006 they published an almost total renouncement of the view they advocated in Open Embrace.
While the Open Embrace website is no longer available, it has been kept by the Internet Archive. Via the IA, you can see the website as it appeared in Feb 2003, advertising the book.
As at April 2006, you can read their “Open Letter About Open Embrace“, in which they recant of their previous view. In it, they state that,
…our personal experience in the past five years has shown that we had a lot to learn about NFP, and that there is a dark side we weren’t aware of. Though Open Embrace said that it only involves a short period of abstinence, we didn’t know that during breastfeeding cycles it often involves month-long periods of abstinence and dehabilitating stress. During such times (as well as during menopause and stressful life seasons), strict NFP reaches a point where it is more harmful for a marriage than good.
… it’s a theological attack on women to always require that abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) for the entire duration of her fertile life, except for the handful of times when she conceives.
Oddly, by June 2006 the same text of the “Open Letter” had been retitled “An Update from Bethany”, attributed only to her, while Sam published a short article online, “Sex & the Early Church”. This article describes Sam’s enchantment (and disillusionment) with the early church and goes some way to providing an explanation for why they left the Protestant church and joined—wait for it—the Eastern Orthodox church.
The whole thing must have been embarrassing for the Torodes, and they received no small measure of vitriol criticism from Roman Catholic apologists for their trouble. This is indicative of the passion that the topic rouses in people. After all, it’s sex we’re talking about here.
(For a summary of the Torode timeline and a short interview with Bethany, have a look at this article from Catapult Magazine.)
My project doesn’t focus on contraception specifically, although of course it’s part of the package. It does occur to me, though, that it seems inconsistent to hold both the view that barrier contraception (like condoms) is wrong—because it denies the procreative effect of sex—and that NFP is okay.
Surely if you’re trying not to have babies, by NFP or some other non-abortifacient method, you’re denying the procreative effect of sex in that act?
Protestants (including Ash) have long held that married Christians ought to be open to having children, but that it is not each sex act which needs to be open to procreation, but the marriage as a whole. That’s where my project comes in: is it all a matter of the arbitrary exercise of Christian freedom, or are there theological and ethical considerations that can help guide couples as they think through having a family?
It’s important to think about, because conception is unlike any other human activity. When a couple conceives, they are actually creating a new life. That’s no small thing.
Thanks – that’s a great post.
What about vasectomy? This never seems to be questioned in Protestant circles… yet it seems to destroy the couple’s openness to children. Is having had a number of children already a sufficient excuse?!
That’s an important & valid point about NFP vs more explicit forms of contraception; they’re ostensibly one and the same.
Ben: “Protestants (including Ash) have long held that married Christians ought to be open to having children, but that it is not each sex act which needs to be open to procreation, but the marriage as a whole.”
Could you recommend any literature which argues this? It’s a point which, in my naivety and ignorance most likely, I’m not convinced of.
@Michael – I think that’s exactly the way people think: that once you’ve had your two or three (or four if you’re a missionary!), you can get the mini-snip no problems. I don’t know what I think about this yet—it’s the ’stopping’ issue.
@Sam – The best place to start would be Ash, because he argues persuasively and references some earlier work (although his book isn’t really aiming to be any kind of literature review, which means there’s not a lot of it).
An important distinction has been missed here. There are two distinct forms of NFP. The first is Ecological Breastfeeding (EBF)which is God’s own plan for spacing babies. As my wife and I define it in our NFP manual, “Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach,” EBF “is that form of nursing in which 1) the mother fulfills her baby’s needs for frequent suckling and her full-time presence and 2) in which the child’s frequent suckling postpones the return of the mother’s fertility.” Ecological breastfeeding is described by the Seven Standards which are maternal behaviors that significantly influence the frequency of suckling. Couples do not need to have a serious reason to do EBF while knowing of its natural baby-spacing effect. Actually, the benefits of this sort of breastfeeding are so great for both mother and baby that the couple need a sufficiently serious reason NOT to practice EBF. This practice delays the return of fertility for 14 to 15 months, on the average, with about 70% of first periods coming between 9 and 20 months. If the couple achieve pregnancy as soon as the signs fertility return, they will have between 18 and 30 months spacing between births.
For more information, see our website, http://www.NFPandmore.org.
John F. Kippley
Thanks for your comment, John.
How do you know EBF is “God’s own plan for spacing babies”?
My wife and I think about this a bit. We have two children and could easily have more. But would it be a Godly option to get the snip and foster and adopt instead?
I think so. After all, God stopped at one child and then adopted a whole bunch more didn’t he?
We infer that ecological breastfeeding is God’s own plan for spacing babies from what happens in “less-developed” cultures not affected by Western practices. The mothers keep their babies with them, the babies suckle frequently, and fertility is significantly delayed. It is a beautiful human ecology of benefit to both mother and baby. It is designed by the Author of Nature. That’s why we are convinced that it is God’s own plan for spacing babies. Check out the breastfeeding research at our website.
John F. Kippley
http://www.NFPandmore.org
Okay, again, thanks for posting, John.
I guess I’m very hesitant to draw conclusions about how God intends things to be just by observing the way things operate in nature.
I will check out your site. Thanks.
I am right with you here, Ben. The theology inferred from nature has all sorts of difficulties. It was precisely this thinking in Germany that led Karl Barth to utter his famous ”Nein!” Inevitably, the inference from nature confuses culture and nature and neglects the doctrine of the fall. The fall distorts both our behaviour and our observation of nature too.
Dan Anderson has written very persuasively of the way we often infer a theology of gender from nature on his blog recently. I’d been interested to hear your thoughts on that, Ben.
What is infant mortality like in non-Western cultures, John?
It seems to me that some of the commentators are looking for problems where there are none. I suppose that an atheist would have to deny that God, the Author of Nature, designed the physical aspects of human nature such that mothers would breastfeed their babies and that the frequent suckling of the babies would postpone the return of fertility, but I can’t imagine why any theist would want to deny it.
As far as infant mortality in less-developed countries is concerned, I don’t keep track. What I do know, however, is that both the World Health Organization and UNICEF urge mothers to breastfeed their babies for at least two years, and the only imaginable reason for that is for the better health of the babies. One of the international health organizations has said that the lives of 1,500,00 babies would be saved each year if mothers would breastfeed only for the first six months of life.
Sexual sterilization is not morally indifferent; it is morally wrong. I enter this here only to register disagreement with a previous comment. For a civilization to survive, mothers need to have at least 2.1 children. Each and every marriage act ought to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant, for better and for worse. Each act of marital contraception says “for better but definitely and positively NOT for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy,” thus contradicting the marriage covenant. For more on this, see “Holy Communion: Eucharistic and Marital” and “The Repentant Sterilized Couple” at our website.
John Kippley
What about the pain of childbirth? Should we use drugs to take away the natural pain? Some would argue (at my local birth centre for example) that it is natural and entirely to be embraced, and that you aren’t a real woman if you take drugs to dull it!
I made the comment about third world infant mortality to make the point that it is specious and patronising to infer from the behaviour of less technologically advanced societies a theological rationale for the rearing of children – because they are somehow ‘closer to nature’. The reasons for high infant mortality are no doubt complex – but that is precisely my point.
I am not persuaded that sexual sterilisation is always morally wrong – ‘intrinsically evil’ is the usual terminology. The ethic that infers these things from nature does not take into account the eschatological conditions under which we now live – as the gospel informs us.
I don’t think there is anything I can write that you will find persuasive. I can only repeat that God is the author of Nature. He does know what He is doing. Despite the Fall, breastfeeding is the most natural and the best way to take care of babies, and a baby’s frequent suckling normally suppresses the return of fertility for a time that provides two years of spacing between births, on the average, in addition to the many physical and emotional benefits for mother and baby alike. To me, it is obvious that this is God’s first plan for baby care and baby spacing. Systematic NFP would be his second plan. Thanks for letting me contribute to your dialogue. Cordially, John Kippley
Hi John,
Personally, I’m open to the idea that NFP is God’s will for spacing children. I have concerns, though, about how you reach the conclusion that it’s God’s will, specifically because you’ve concluded that it is based on an inference from nature.
We can infer all sorts of things from nature. Just the other day I heard a preacher in an online sermon say, regarding revelation, that we can infer from the fact that our bodies heal that God loves us and desires order and restoration.
I believe he does love us and that he desires order and restoration, but I believe that because it’s revealed to me in the revelation of his character and will in Holy Scripture. Having understood that from Scripture, I can then appreciate it when I see it in the world. I feel like if we just infer things from what we observe in nature, there’s no control on what we ought and ought not infer.
Should we infer from the fact that we get sick and injured in the first place that God is malevolent and wants to cause us harm? Certainly not (or even, “Nein!”); but why not? It’s because we know from God’s special revelation in the Scriptures that this is not what he’s like. The Scriptures put everything we observe into context, so we see them the way God sees them.
The Bible, which is the self-conscious self-revelation of God, is the way we are able to sort through what’s what in our world, and differentiate the things that are in accordance with God’s character and will, those that are contrary to his will (being symptoms of the Fall) or those which are something else, for example, in this age, aspects of Christian freedom.
These are the things I’m hoping to explore in my project. I’m firmly convicted in many of the things I believe, but I hope I’m not too dogmatic on an issue like this, which at this stage at least, I consider to be a matter of Christian freedom.
I’m after a robust theological rationale for how many children a couple ought to have, when, how they should space them etc, rather than relying on an inference from nature that’s unconstrained by reflection on what God has revealed to us in Holy Scripture.
If I’m being unfair to your views, John, please correct me.
“How long into a Christian couple’s marriage ought they conceive? How many children should Christians have? Should they space them out? When should they stop having kids, if ever?”
In the nicest possible way, Ben B (2), few things annoy me more about Christian thinking than the idea that these questions might have an answer.
Hi Ben,
… few things annoy me more about Christian thinking than the idea that these questions might have an answer.
Why is that?
I’m not suggesting there is “an answer”, just that there may be things to consider as couples make these decisions. As I think I said above, I feel like this is very much an area of Christian freedom. But there’s often plenty to consider in matters of Christian freedom, wrt. making wise choices, even if we’re free to act in whatever way we see fit.
Perhaps it’s my soft conscience but I see a lot of Christian literature talk about the “wise” way of doing something and in effect this is indistinguishable from the “right” way to do something.
It’s not questions on kids in particular but the class on this topic at college did make me very angry. Mostly because there was a woman who had decided not to have kids who expressed herself quite honestly and everyone completely ignored what she said and kept on with the line, “oh no, you don’t have to have kids but you have to be open to having kids…”
I think wisdom should be of the form: if you do this, this happens. Bad things happen when you confuse wisdom with deontology. If we’re free, we’re free and wisdom has nothing to do with what we ought to do. It is only a knowledge of what follows from certain decisions.
I share the belief that God has revealed Himself and his will in a special way in Sacred Scripture, but if anything is clear, it is that the meaning of Sacred Scripture is not always clear. The presence of some 30,000 or so Protestant denominations claiming to be based on the Bible clearly demonstrates that statement. I am aware of a Christian gentleman who has written against contraception and almost against the use of systematic NFP, using Scripture verses,so sure is he that Scripture calls for no efforts to avoid pregnancy. But he has simply not been taken very seriously even in his own denomination.
God has also revealed Himself in the Book of Nature, but that is not always clear either, especially once would-be philosophers and theologians interpret it in different ways.
So are we left with an endless babble of debaters? Jesus promised that He would not leave us orphans and would send the Holy Spirit, and He did. Further He established the Church upon Peter and the other apostles. The author of 1 Timothy calls the Church, not the Bible, the “pillar and the bulwark of the truth” (3:15). That Church, founded upon the apostles, is still with us today, and its teaching authority is known by its Latin name, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
With regard to family size, the Catholic Church calls for generosity in the service of life. It teaches that having children is a normal responsibility of marriage. In Humanae Vitae, it teaches that in order for couples to practice systematic natural family planning, such couples need to have a sufficiently serious reason to avoid pregnancy. The couples themselves need to be tuned into the call to generosity so that they can make the right decisions before God. These decisions call for discernment through prayer. There is ample material on this in Humanae Vitae, the Documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, plus articles at my website.
I entered this discussion by stating that ecological breastfeeding is a wonderful way of spacing babies, and I called it “God’s own way of spacing babies.” The official documents of the Catholic Church say nothing about breastfeeding, to the best of my knowledge, but Pope John Paul II endorsed the recommendations of WHO and UNICEF calling for mothers to breastfeed for at least two years. The frequent suckling of ecological breastfeeding helps to maintain the milk supply for that long a time and more.
The value of breastfeeding is revealed in the Book of Nature. The spacing effects of ecological breastfeeding have been amply demonstrated.
If couples want to follow the full-quiver approach to family growth, I will not argue with them, but I would urge them to do ecological breastfeeding. God as the Author of Nature has built into female human nature this normal way of providing the best of baby care and simultaneously a healthy spacing of babies.
I do not believe that “Evolution” is the Author of Nature or the explanation of everything we view today. I believe that God is the Author of Nature, and that it is appropriate to attribute the wonderful ecology between mother and baby to his design, not just chance.
In his service,
John F. Kippley
http://www.NFPandmore.org
Ben—
While I’m pleased that you linked to my blog as an example of the Catholic reaction to the Torode’s recantation, I must object to your characterizing my comments as “vitriole”.
I’ve gone back and looked at that post and I don’t see anything vitriolic about it at all. Yes, I was highly critical of the Torodes, and very disappointed with them, but I sought to be—and believe I was—thoughtful and even-handed.
What did you find “vitriolic” about my remarks?
—Eric Scheidler (Square Zero)
@ Ben B – It’s possible we using the terms ‘wisdom’ and ‘freedom’ a bit loosely, I guess. In my mind, the fact that we’re free from obeying the law doesn’t mean there’s no room for ethical thinking within that zone of freedom. Christians are utterly free, but we choose to curtail that freedom for the sake of the gospel. For example, I’m free not to invite guests into my home, but I do it because (among other reasons, like enjoyment) it serves the cause of Christ.
That’s the kind of thing I’m hoping to think through. As I think I said above (sorry if I’m just repeating myself), I think the questions I’m raising are issues of freedom, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to say in terms of what’s best.
In terms of wisdom, I think there’s more of a moral dimension to wisdom than just explaining consequences—that’s what I see in Scripture, anyway. I’ll have to think about it some more.
@ Eric – you’re right. It was a poor choice of words because I knocked it together too quickly and I apologise. Body updated.
In regards to John F. Kippley’s supposition that EBF is effective in suppressing the return of the fertility cycle, thus being an effective form of natural child spacing, I pose this fact: Many mothers, though exclusively and consistently breastfeeding, become fertile only a couple months after giving birth. I know from experience; I am one of those mothers. While I support those women for whom breastfeeding works as a birth control method, that isn’t possible for all, or even most, women. Every woman has their own levels of hormones, which enable their bodies to suppress fertility, or become fertile, and that is why some women (myself included) are able to breastfeed, become pregnant, and *continue breastfeeding* through the pregnancy! (Whereas, some women will actually miscarry if they’re still producing breastfeeding-hormones when they become pregnant.) Personally, I believe that each woman (and couple) has to accept the fertility God has given them, and be good stewards of it. And that may mean using another form of birth control when EBF isn’t a workable option! Thus, I find it hard to believe that EBF is “God’s own plan for spacing babies”. Yes, it works for many, but not all. And one more thought: what about couples who have children very close in age (less than 18 months apart)? Are these children not in “God’s plan”? I think not; I know many families who are thankful for close-together children!
Hi Miriam,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely.
I think it’s very dangerous to observe a biological system and read straight off it an ethical system for making decisions and thinking about life. Creation and humans are far too complicated for that.
May God bless your children.
In previous comments in this thread, I have explained why we call ecological breastfeeding “God’s own plan for spacing babies.” God is the author of nature; He is the one who created the mo ther-baby relationship in such a way that when the mother stays with and allows her baby to suckle as frequently as he likes, his suckling will postpone the return of fertility. It is not of man’s making.
This normal effect seems to have the characteristics of a normal distribution, so there will be a spread on both sides of the average. And yes, those children who are born close together are God’s children. I do not throw around terms like many and most without evidence. In our published studies, the average length of breastfeeding amenorrhea was 14.5 months with a 5.2 months standard deviation. Yes, statistically speaking, about 2% of moms doing EBF can be expected to have a period before four months. At the other end, a similar number can be expected to go at least 24 months prior to their first period. Still, on the average, the babies will be spaced about two years apart without any fertility awareness or periodic abstinence. I don’t know what to call it except part of God’s plan for love, marriage and family. Those who have an early return of periods and fertility have something else God has given women: an awareness of their fertility through the presence of cervical mucus prior to ovulation.
John Kippley
http://www.NFPandmore.org
” It does occur to me, though, that it seems inconsistent to hold both the view that barrier contraception (like condoms) is wrong—because it denies the procreative effect of sex—and that NFP is okay.”
This is only true if viewed from the physical act itself or from a self serving standpoint.
In reality if studied from the Catholic approach NFP includes a spiritual / mental side. If you are practicing NFP for the sole purpose of not having children because you don’t want them, then you would be correct in saying it’s inconsistent. But the Catholic Church teaches that NFP be used in being a responsible parent. If you are not in a position to have more children then you would use NFP for limited (or long term in some cases) to not have children. The couple should never abstain for selfish desires. If say employment is in shambles at the time, then the church teaches that it would be appropriate to use NFP to avoid pregnancy. By using NFP, the married couple may have close to monthly conversations evaluating their decision to avoid pregnancy. In the employment example, it may be that six months to a year down the road things have stabilized and everything is looking good. The couple may decide that if they had sex and did get pregnant it would be ok and within their capabilities.
Unfortunately, most of the NFP based information at least from a Christian stand point is Catholic based. That said I find much of the Catholic perspective to have value even from a protestant perspective. At the very least one should find much of the Catholic taught reasons behind NFP and the Churches anti-contraceptive stand very thought provoking.
An excellent presentation on this subject was made by Professor Janet E. Smith called “Contraception: Why not?”. There are many other good ones, but this is certainly one of the best in my opinion. I liked it enough that I requested and was granted permission by Professor Smith to post this presentation on my blog through multiple posts. You can get audio versions from online stores catering to Catholic content as well.
From my studies, I think the Churches view point on NFP goes beyond the physical act by combining the physical with the spiritual and mental approach. If we are going to have sex when we are fertile we should not be shocked if God creates. But being open to new life also means being open to a new baby because we don’t necessarily have any reason not to. Notice that in my attempt to explain the Catholic Churches teaching, I was not advocating “trying” to have babies. The church is not saying that to be open to new life one must always be trying to have babies.
Hi Dustmite.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comment.
I can see how important a spiritual/godliness side of NFP decision-making is, but I’ve got a further question. If we agree that couples ought to be reflective, wise and godly in their decisions about conception, what’s the difference between using NFP and using a condom to enact that decision (not conceive at a particular time)?
Looking forward to hearing from you.
If we agree that living in a house would be more desirable than living in apartment, would that make morally the same the different ways of obtaining the money to buy that house? Thnk hard work and scrimping. Think selling illegal drugs. Who can’t see the moral difference? So why do some folks have difficulty in seeing that a common purpose does not make morally the same the different ways of avoiding pregnancy? What is it about sexuality that seems to cancel out the reasoning that would be so apparent in non-sexual matters?
What you’ve said there John is, “One thing is moral and the other is immoral – can’t you see the difference?”
Hi John,
I don’t understand your analogy.
Your position seems to be that people are permitted by God to regulate conception. That is, a couple can decide, legitimately, to not have children at a certain point in their marriage, as long as they do so prayerfully etc. And they can use NFP to regulate conception.
NFP is one way of regulating conception. Condoms are another way. What I don’t understand is why there is a moral difference between the two. As the other BenB points out, you seem to presuppose that condom use is immoral, and use that to argue that condom use is immoral.
Why is it immoral? If the purpose of a godly couple using condoms is to regulate conception at a time in their marriage when it is going to severely damage their relationship or put enormous strain on their resources, for example—a reason that proponents of NFP I think would see as legitimate—what is wrong with it? If proponents of NFP would not think that was legitimate, what other reasons could there be for not conceiving? Why would condom use be immoral in *those* circumstances?
I can only conclude from this that NFP *is* a form of contraception. And that it’s consistent to hold that a couple should play *no* part in regulating conception, either using NFP or condoms. I don’t agree with that, because it has no sustainable theological justification and equates ‘nature’ with ‘God’s will’, but at least it’s consistent. Your view seems to say that regulation is only permissible using NFP, but you haven’t helped me to see why that is.
I am sure I will not do this argument any justice, but will do my best. A condom is an overt attempt to prevent God from creating a new living soul. From an intimacy aspect, a couple contracepting is saying I give all of me to you except my fertility. Likewise that is the message being sent to God, I trust you with everything but my fertility. I think it was Professor Smith that gave an analogy of a wedding. What is worse, sending invitations to people you don’t want at your wedding and then calling them up and asking them to not come, or only sending invitations to those you want at your wedding? Likewise, sending God an invitation should be honest and sincere. Another wards, if you knowingly have sex while fertile, you are sending an invitation to God to Create a new life if he so desires. Using contraception is like sending God an invitation but then calling him up and saying we don’t want you, please don’t come. It’s just better to not send the invitation.
I believe the Church is saying that contraception allows and encourages men to approach their wives in a more demanding, physical way than a loving intimate way. There is no reason to say no when you have nothing to fear. So it can cause resentment and even create the feeling of being used. But when fertility is respected it teaches us self restraint during times of abstaining and helps prevent a “used” feeling. By not withholding any part of ourselves from our spouse we are saying “I love you enough to give all of me to you”.
The Catholic Church also attempts to build a case against contraception for much of the decline in society and personally I think there is something to their argument. If you look at all the benefits society was promised from contraception (such as lower abortion rates) you will see none of them have panned out. Abortions are higher today than when birth control was introduced, divorce is higher and this is especially true from within the church, affairs and sexual immorality in general all have exploded over the years. The divorce rate within churches is an interesting angle to think about. Christians used to have the lowest divorce rates and today there is not much of a distinction. For many years all churches were against contraception. Then finally the churches started breaking from that tradition until today the only church still teaching against contraception is the Catholic Church. As churches broke from that teaching, divorce rates increased rapidly to where we are today. Supposedly there are studies that indicate NFP practicing couples have a much lower divorce rate than contracepting couples.
Sadly I feel my reply is rather fragmented and for that I apologize. The topic is very over whelming and from my studies there are multiple facets to the Catholic teaching, everything from spiritual to societal. The message is contraception attacks society, spirituality, and intimacy.
There are many side affects to many of the methods of contraception that society uses. Not only do women suffer many side effects, but if you study how many of the products work you will see that they employ abortion as a means to prevent life either as a secondary or even as a primary method. Study how the male and female human body works and you will see that with every sexual act both the male and female body physically strive to procreate. If you strip the emotional pleasure from the act you have nothing but an attempt at procreation with every sexual act. This was how God created us. Most women have an increased sexual desire when they are fertile; this too was created by God. This appears to be Gods way but mans way is pills, shots, patches and latex to stop the “result” of how God created us.
By the way, you are right that NFP “can” be mentally used as a method of birth control. I do realize this is a fine line to argue, but the Church is claiming that if approched correctly it is not being used as a contraception in the same manner that a condom or IUD, etc. is used.
No, I did not just say that one is moral and the other is immoral. What I said is that there is a principle involved, and that principle is that a common purpose does not make morally the same all the different methods or means to accomplish that purpose or goal. Your line of reasoning is just the opposite. You assume that having the same goal of avoiding pregnancy makes contraceptive behaviors morally the same as not engaging in the marriage act at the fertile time. You have assumed a principle that can have deadly consequences and which nobody would argue for except in the case of birth control. This is an area where intense self-interest clouds the reasoning applied to other areas of life.
As to why contraceptive behaviors are immoral, I think it starts with what the marriage act ought to be. I think Catholic teaching on this matter can be summed up this way: “Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant.” In marriage we covenant “for better and for worse.” The body language of contraceptive intercourse says loudly and clearly, “We take each other for better but definitely and positively NOT for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.” Thus contraceptive intercourse contradicts the built-in meaning of the marriage act. It is therefore dishonest and immoral.
I think I’ll let you have the last word on that, John.
Thanks everyone for your contributions.