Back to ye olde mail pouch.

Chickpea Eater writes about a chain of posts (see here and here):

There's nothing wrong with willing to avoid conceiving children, assuming that you do so for good reasons. The problem with non-NFP means of avoiding pregnancy is not that they seek to avoid pregnancy, but rather it is the _way_in_which_ they seek to avoid pregnancy. It's a justified end, but an improper means.

Chesterton's analogy (which you may have heard) is this - the Romans feasted, and to avoid gaining too much weight and becoming full, they vomited up their feasts. They had a legitimate goal (avoiding weight gain, not being stuffed), but they went about it in an improper way. They refused to accept the natural consequences of feasting (recieving nutrients, getting full), by the means of vommitting.

The same may be true with birth control. There is nothing wrong with seeking to limit family size, but it must be done in a way that respects the integrity of the sexual act. (In fact, the inverse is also true - there is nothing wrong with wanting to concieve, but you must respect the sexual act, so you can't make your baby in a testube, it must be done through natural sexual intercourse).

...With NFP, a man can't just grab his wife anytime he wants to and screw her, he sometimes has to be like, "Oh, she's fertile today, so we can't have sex now unless we're willing to take the chance of conceiving a child." It naturally builds self-control, which condoms do not. Granted, it is _possible_ to have self-control and use condoms, but self-control is basically required by NFP.

With condoms, you're using a piece of rubber. With NFP, you're using self control.

I disagree that non-NFP contraception is generally aimed at the right end, just incorrectly. Unfortunately, I think people take the acceptable end of trying to limit the amount of children they have and pervert it. Instead of limiting the amount of children they have because of serious financial issues or other legitimate problems (while still being open to and full of joy for pregnancy) they do so because they just don't want children, which they see as getting in the way of their fun (the "I don't want kids, these are the best years of my life" mentality). It is such misuse that "violates the integrity of the natural act," as you wrote.

This is what I referred to earlier as the failed contraceptive mentality. I think you can agree with this, as you write it's possible to use non-NFP contraceptive methods well, while acknowledging NFP is much more conducive to the necessary self-control couples should exercise.

Practically speaking, though, our culture doesn't encourage a healthy mindset towards contraception, which makes proper non-NFP contraceptive use all the more difficult.

We can ask whether that error can be corrected. Perhaps the symbolism and aesthetics of non-NFP contraception is such that the contraceptive mentality can't help but sink in. (I don't know how people dealt with the issue when contraception was culturally and legally limited to married couples, for instance; perhaps such a culture encouraged a better attitude.)

In response, I would say that it is possible for married couples to use contraception well nowadays. I think a Catholic might disagree, though he should disagree only for practical reasons, as I think we do.

Practicality is really the only difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings, in this and other issues. Both are opposed to ignoring the procreative aspect of sex; many Orthodox simply feel that married couples (of course the Orthodox are opposed to unwed couples using contraception, or even having sex in the first place) can use contraception well if they keep up a solid relationship with their spiritual fathers (the priest you regularly confess and talk to), something all Orthodox should do anyway.