A better analogy might be murder with a weapon vs. with one’s bare hands.

Ladislaus, here is the Deferrari translation of the passage in question:


.
Contra the translation you are using, the one I have produced says that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, then the ends are duly ordered. So, which translation is correct?
.
As an accomplished Latinist, I imagine you will appreciate the original Latin as well:
.
.
The affably erudite Fr Vermeersch, who was Pius XI's chief moral consultant and the principal ghost-writer of the encyclical, was commissioned to release a small catechism of commentary on it. There is no greater human authority on the meaning of the encyclical, and he explains:


.
That is my case in brief. I have given it to you in this thread and this one. What is your rebuttal?

I will look into it. It sounds like the most coherent argument I've heard so far.

Still, we're keeping in mind that the Magisterium is protected and the intention can only clarify something if it is unclear, I'll have a look at the Latin.

If NFP is a moral good, then why have I seen marriages and relationships destroyed because couples had trouble being open to life, or if they felt they had too many children as is? Now, I have actually seen this happen over the years and so I know what I am talking about here. If the marital act is not in order and the spouses are not open to procreation, nothing but sorrow and anger enters the household. If you remove the purpose of something, you are left empty. All kinds of vices enter the home such as the husband having an addiction to pornography. I wonder if it was because the marital act was not being performed the way God intended?

I knew of one fertile couple. They had been married a good ten years. She had no miscarriages and conceived only once. They had an eight year old son. They were too busy openly talking about how NFP has changed their marriage and how it has helped them “get to know their bodies.” Did they mean her safe days? Safe from what…pregnancy? It makes you wonder. But when I looked at them, I could see quite clearly that the both of them could die of terror. Preventing pregnancy with INTENT TO DO SO is still preventing pregnancy, no matter how you do it! It is sinful to prevent because you do not want the responsibility of another child.

I would be very careful when parties debate on Natural Family Planning because neither of us are the creators or “deciders” of the marital act. God has laid down rules for this stuff. Remember we are even wounded by Original Sin, if we have used NFP selfishly at least one or twice, we will do it again and then it is only a matter of time after that. sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is very powerful, I suggest we all stick with the Natural Law on this one. I understand that there are grave reasons for using NFP, but how many ACTUALLY have grave reasons? Almost none. Planned Parenthood does recommend NFP as a preventer. It makes me very sick to the stomach to think in using something that an evil organization recommends to women who clearly would use it to PREVENT PREGNANCY, so that they could have pleasure. sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is passing by but the souls of your children and the the souls which God wants to give you DO NOT.

It’s funny because when I was ten years old, I actually frowned upon any kind of natural prevention of a pregnancy. I still frown today.

Dr. Billings stated, and I was there to hear him…

I’ll take the Dimond Bros. over liberal “Catholics” any day!