Is "Amoris Laetitia" as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?


The purpose of contraceptives and NFP May well be the same - to avoid a conception. There’s no evil in that “purpose”. There is no wrong in seeking to avoid a conception - there might be excellent and good reasons to pursue such a course. Wrongdoing arises when the means adopted are unacceptable. NFP and contraception represent different means - one is not evil and the other is evil.


Indeed. The “end” of avoiding a pregnancy for a period of time is not a wrong end. There are various ways a couple might pursue this end:

  • no sex for the duration;
  • use contraception;
  • time sexual relations to the times when pregnancy is less likely.

The Church finds the 2nd of these means to be an immoral means. The church takes no issue with couples adopting the 3rd means where they have good reason.


I actually think the “end” goal is different.

Contraception and sterilization intend to remove the ability to procreate with sexual intercourse. NFP does not.

NFP, follows fertility cycles to have intercourse during less fertile periods, or abstaining all together for a period. Or following fertile periods more if desiring to increse chances of conception.

Procreation is not removed or frustrated from NFP. That means conception is open, but not likely due to natural levels of fertility.

Creation caused by sex is still honored in an act which does not deliberately block it from happening.


Let me play devils advocate for moment …

To be factual, both contraception and sterilization diminish the chance of conception, they do not remove it. There a many cases of fertilization happening while using contraception and after being sterilized… for instance NFP is 98-99% effective and a condom is 98-99% effective… both stats are for perfect execution… both methods falll in to the mid 80% in practice as people make mistakeS

So, to use your logic, these methods that means conception is open, but not likely…

I acknowledge fully that the difference is natural fertility levels vs using science … therein lies the moral question.

I think a lot of people struggle with the fact that the intention is the same - to avoid conception and engage in marital relations. I’ve heard many women argue that NFP is particularly difficult for them because it is the time where they are most naturally open to relations and for some that is the only time they can engage with their husband due to other biological reasons which are likely too graphic for this forum. So as most reasonable people would admit, there many complicated situations that must be considered


Is “Amoris Laetitia” as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?

In all such moral and theological matters, I defer to the reasoning employed by heavyweight moralists The Dead Milkmen. From their seminal song “Stuart”

You know that Jonny Wurster kid?
The kid that delivers papers in the neighborhood?
He’s a fine kid
Some of the neighbors say he smokes crack, but I don’t believe it…

Middle of the road opinions make no headlines. They generate no revenue. Perhaps reason even opposes revenue. Thus we have examples such as LifeSiteNews and The Vortex decrying the imminent collapse of all that is good.

Visa, Mastercard and PayPal accepted…


Fr Murray a canonist, + a panel, of ALL qualified individuals, discuss AL . Note the internal links for further context of the subject matter.

Avg Catholics staying informed, is NOT meddling in what is not our own.


You appear convinced that that Intention is evil. From where did you get that erroneous idea?


Many women have told you they can’t have sex other than when fertile? :thinking:


To suggest that God’s grace isn’t sufficient is very very dangerous. And that’s one of the problems with AL.

Jesus Himself told us that His grace is sufficient.


Care to show us where in the AL it suggests that God’s grace is not sufficient?


This whole forum has reminded me of “Methodist Coloring Book” many a time…


Never said anything about the intention being evil. Just haven’t been able to reconcile the two situations where the intent is the same, but one is outlawed and the other is not


Scholars have laid it all out far clearer and in more detail than I can…(

but simply take para 273 of AL…(and try to get past the circumlocutions in the pope’s writing).

"In such cases, while the decision is voluntary, inasmuch as it does not run counter to the inclination of their desire, it is not free, since it is practically impossible for them not to choose that evil. "

And then reflect on this from the Council of Trent.

"If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema”

And then there’s this from Our Lord!

2 Cor 12:9 “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”


But you directly imply it. Why would something be “outlawed” on the basis of intention unless the Intention is evil?

The one that is outlawed (contraception) is outlawed not for evil intent, but for the evil means.


In writings like this, words have real meaning, not the casual usage we give them. While it cannot be said that the commandments of God are impossible to follow, neither can it be said, that in practice, God’s commands are followed. There is sin still in the world, and not all of it is of the mortal variety. Most of us have received communion after some sin since our last confession.

If not for the word “practically” (as in practice), I would agree with you. However with it, the actual reality of what is proposed is being addressed. You ended with:

2 Cor 12:9 “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”

This too is kind of the point. Do we ask people to do that which is impossible apart from the grace of God, while not receiving the grace of God?


And that’s the problem with that (deliberately used) term “practically impossible”…not helpful or appropriate for an ecclesial document.

It gives people a huge, personally defined, ever stretchable umbrella to run under.


No I don’t directly imply it… i’m calling in to question the logic of outlawing one means vs another when the intention is the same.

I’m open to being convinced, but haven’t heard a convincing argument yet…


Here is the logic:

We are not to meddle, stop or prevent the natural precreating function of our body artificially. God created us and creation (of life) is His alone.

On the other hand, abstinence (for sex) is allowed. There were instances where that happened.


Then you call into question the principles of catholic moral theology. Are you familiar with the 3 fonts?

Acts can be condemned quite apart from their Intention. Thus different acts, having the same Intention, need not be both good or both evil.


Too graphic for this forum?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit