It is not that I "feel free to judge Humanae Vitae as wrong" but that I have real concerns with the apparent contradiction; which I admit I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to resolve myself. I do not know that Humane Vitae is wrong, that is why I made this thread. To see how (or if) we can justify the words of a supposedly valid text promulgated by a supposedly validly elected Pope.
I have not heard this argument before and on paper it seems good; but you are using a single text to justify itself -- that text being a problematic one as we have seen in my original post. What would be more helpful is comparing Humane Vitae to Casti Connubii and showing how the texts do not conflict. I agree somewhat with the first point quoted. There is no positive duty on behalf of a couple to ensure they ARE performing the marital deed ONLY on days in which the wife IS fertile.
The problem seems to lay in their intention, which is where I have a problem with what you said. You stated: "...[if they] avoided sex on what their common sense told them might be infertile days, then they would not sin." This is an issue. They are intentionally trying not to have a baby. They are subordinating the primary end of the marital act to the secondary ends.
As to the second paragraph, I do not see how a sin against the natural law can be justified by as long as it is not "permanent" or "regular". If, in fact, the primary end of the marital act is subordinated to any other end, then it is a done deal. From Casti Connubii for reference:
"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved." - Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
There are two main points that need to be separated:
1. Sin of Deed/Action: Positively "acting" in such a way as to prevent conception is
always sinful. That can
never be justified, even for, so called, "well-founded reasons." But simply abstaining from the sɛҳuąƖ act is not a positive "action." It is "inaction. So "inaction," by its nature, can never be a sin of "deed" or action. This is related to the "actions" taken to implement the techniques of NFP to avoid conception. Never allowed.
2. Sin of Thought/Intention: Assuming that the couple did not resort to positive "actions," one must still consider their "intentions" driving their desire to abstain from the sɛҳuąƖ act during what might be, by common sense, a fertile period. If their "intention" is to
never have any more children, then that "intention," to avoid sex during a fertile period, is sinful. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of children. However, the Church has consistently said there are exceptions in certain cases, when grave reasons exist, that a couple may, temporarily, resort to the periods of natural infertility.
For more background on the exceptional cases, look at this:
https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/OCR_layer_only/The%20%E2%80%9CRhythm%E2%80%9D%20in%20Marriage%20and%20Christian%20Morality,%20N.%20Orville%20Giese,%20S.T.D.,%201944_OCR.pdf
Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI (Read 12697 times)