the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

Several concluding remarks are in order. 1. This distinction between "philosophy" and "contradiction" is nonsense. A contradiction is a philosophical claim; it is a claim of identity. Moreover, this distinction of hers didn't exist in the original limitations of the round, so it can be thrown out completely. Basically, she wanted this debate to be, "One day the Pope said something, and the next day said something different. " That wasn't explicitly laid out when she initially constructed the round, and she also never addressed a claim that I made in my initial constructive: "Note that in this instance I am not arguing that the church is contradicting a previous teaching (e. g. saying something and then saying, 'No, we didn't say that. ')" If the debate was going to be that narrow--even narrower than the initial construction of the debate, I might add--my opponent should have done better to clarify that. 2. My arguments are not about interpretation. (Of course, "All knowledge is interpretation," but in the sense that she used the word in round 3, I'm not. ) My argument is about juxtaposing two claims made by the Catholic Church that, upon said juxtaposition, yield a contradiction. To reiterate: Catholic Teaching on Sexuality: (1) Sex must be for the purposes of uniting the married couple, and (2) Sex must be open to the possibility of the creation of a new being as a result of that unity. Catholic Teaching on Contraceptives: The advocacy of Natural Family Planning (NFP), a policy whereby "methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and infertile periods" is used (Catechism of the Catholic Church, qtd. in Kreeft 250). This involves charting the woman's ovulation cycles, having sex during breastfeeding, amongst other things. The latter is the alternative to typical forms of contraception, e. g. the pill or condoms, which, according to the Church's statements (brought up by my opponent in the comment section of this debate) fall into the category of "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible"[; these actions are] intrinsically evil. " This evil comes from the fact that these contraceptive methods are by their nature intending to subvert the openness of life necessary for sex that is morally legitimate. My contention is that advocating NFP--a policy which is still not open to the possibility of life--violates this standard. To put in the terms of "A and B" that my opponent wants me to: Catholic Teaching on Sexuality: You must have sex that is open to the possibility of life. Catholic Teaching on Contraceptives: You are allowed to have sex that is in its intention not open to the possibility of life. You can and you can't. That is a contradiction. QED. 3. The only ways she attempted to get out of this contradiction are not sufficient to address it. (A) First she claims that NFP does not contradict the teaching on sexuality because "NFP is not fool proof. " However, as I pointed out, by that measure contraceptives such as the pill or condoms are also open to life, for they are not 100 percent effective. By this measure, then, the pill and condoms should be allowable under Catholic doctrine. Openness to life, I would add here finally, is itself a troubling standard. If NFP is "as effective as the pill," as Kreeft says (which is false), then what's the difference between doing NFP or using a condom? (I'll get to the "it's artificial" claim in a moment. ) Openness to life is best measured not in whether or not you use the pill, but rather if you are willing to accept the life once it is actually there: see the church's teachings on abortion. (B) The claim that "well, condoms and the pill are bad because it's artificial" is an arbitrary heuristic. This assumes that all things non-natural are bad, which is absurd and not supported in other lines of the Church's thinking qua the Catechism and the historical tradition of the Church (or, at least, the standard is not as facile as that). Moreover, the overriding claim against contraceptives are not that they aren't natural, but rather that they display an unwillingness to be open to life. Under NFP, one is deliberately trying to avoid the creation of a life, and one has to put a hell of a lot of work (and thereby a lot more intentionality) into it to make sure that's not the case. Additionally, she doesn't respond to the argument I made in the second round, where I say that it's worse under NFP, because you are actively using your body to undermine its reproductive capabilities. So even if "artificiality" was a meaningful standard, which I've clearly shown that it isn't, NFP is still worse in upholding the openness to life because it requires much more intentionality on the part of the married couple. 4. But, if nothing else, I think the CON deserves a win just on the basis of this statement alone, made at the end of my opponent's round 3 argument: "they wouldn't make such a obvious contradiction if it were in fact a contradiction. " Right. .. because people only contradict themselves intentionally. It's not like the Catholic teaching on contraception is archaic and incoherent or anything. So, at the end of this debate, I've done two key things: (1) I've met the standards set by my opponent from the beginning. I used official Catholic teaching derived from the authority of the Church and its subsequent official statements in the Catechism. I used no Scriptural appeals or tu quoque arguments (like the fact that 99 percent of Catholic women admit to using artificial contraceptives). Frankly, I think I was as gracious as I could have been, given the inordinately narrow parameters made from the outset. Again: that she outright excludes two huge areas of tension from the debate means that even if you don't buy all of my above arguments, you still vote CON because she essentially admits these contradictions exist. (2) I've met my burden set up in my first constructive in Round 1. I have shown one distinct example that proves the falsity of the claim: the Church has never contradicted itself. My burden was to show only one example, which I have sufficiently done as detailed above. I therefore urge a vote in the CON, and I thank my opponent for instigating the debate. Post-Script: I would suggest to my opponent to do one of two things in future debates on this topic, as I see that you have argued this issue multiple times with a few more on the horizon. Either (1) get rid of all of the parameters you set up or (2) specify the debate. I say (2) because it seems to me that given the hyper-specificity of the resolution, you clearly have some contradiction you have in mind that you think people might believe of the church. If that's the case, then come out and say it. Don't just expect the audience on this website to read your mind.