Such as, in some circumstances, viruses are less likely to kill people.

TRiG.

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.

2.) One difference between contraceptives and vaccines is the difference between babies and viruses. I’d like to make an argument that doesn’t circumvent your statement, but it’s true. You are doing something to prevent conception if you use NFP. However, you’re not doing anything that God hasn’t given you the natural faculties to figure out.

In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. (HV#17)

3.) Every time a married couple makes love should be a total gift to one another, anything else is less than ideal. It’s not that the intent is to renew the marriage vows. The marriage vow is the love making, you’re not really married until you seal the deal (at least in the Catholic Church, that’s grounds for a declaration of nullity). Even though it’s 99% effective, it still is an act of faith; regardless of what happens, God will provide. And finally, there is a difference between knowing something and doing something.

Only once before have I talked with committed Protestants about this kind of stuff (who felt justified in their contraception) and I’ve never ceased to tick them off. I certainly don’t judge Protestants for being poorly catechized. As I say, this is a hard teaching, especially today.

Incidentally, I see that the Obama administration has pledged to work with self-insurers so they won’t have to violate their consciences. I wouldn’t be surprised if the result was a continuation of the Bush policy of simply not enforcing the regulations, at least for self-insuring religious organizations.

If you flip that around, why should a Catholic organization be forced to provide the means for someone to accomplish something that it deems is an occasion of sin? To them, it’s scandalous and it would be hard for a Catholic organization which holds fast to the Church’s teachings to provide means for someone to do in private, that which if done in the open would be grounds for their dismissal.

Now it’s my turn to ask you some questions. 😛

1. If “onanism” is a sin, how is it the NFP is not? I suppose you could mess up the timing or God could supernaturally extend the wife’s fertility. But otherwise the sperm will miss it’s mark just as if there were some artificial barrier.

2. What’s wrong with “confus[ing] the body into thinking it is pregnant”? Technology has provided us will all manner of medical methods to confuse the body into doing what’s really best for it. Vaccines confuse the body into thinking it’s sick in order to produce useful antibodies, for instance.

3. I don’t follow what you mean by “That the intent of no marital act is to have as its end anything lower or different than the first.” At first I read it to mean that sex is not intended for a purpose other than renewing the marital vows, which presumably include a commitment to procreate. But in the NFP section, couples organize their sex lives to avoid procreation. How do you resolve the apparent contradiction?

I feel a little like the “weaker brother” Paul talks about:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. (Romans 14:1-3 ESV)

Let’s not despise each other. 😉

Are you saying the Catholic position is that contraception should not be used by anyone, and that therefore the insurance plan should not cover it? Or are you saying that people who work for Catholic organizations should live according to Catholic moral teachings? Or something else?