H
Holly3278
Guest
Hi everyone. A Catholic friend of mine told me that contraception prevents sex from being unitive. Is this true? If so, how? 
- Status
E
edward_george
Guest
When we consider what the Church teaches about the aspects of the sex actāthat it is unitive and procreativeāit may be said that it is hard to remove one aspect without severely damaging, if not destroying, the other. Sex unites a couple for the purpose of procreation, so if we remove the procreative aspect of it, then the unitive aspect is drastically affectedāthe couple is no longer united toward the same end as they would have been had the procreative intention still been present. Itās clear to see that while the two are separate aspects of the same act, they are inseperable. Look to society for evidence of thisācouples who contracept are statistically more likely to divorce, and as there is widespread contraceptive use, there is also widespread divorce. This is because the purpose of marriageāto raise up familiesāis being overlooked, and the love which once held marriages together is being traded in for pleasure.
-ACEGC
-ACEGC
C
christcnection1
Guest
Taken from the following article:Hi everyone. A Catholic friend of mine told me that contraception prevents sex from being unitive. Is this true? If so, how?
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/SHOULDBE.TXT
Artificial contraception violates this definition of marriage. The
two equal ends (reasons for becoming married) are unitive and
procreative love. United with one another in Christ, the two
become as one, and at the same time the couple respond to the
Genesis directive to be fruitful and multiply.
Intrinsic to marriage itself are these two ends. Without them,
Christian marriage ceases to exist. This is the Churchās objective
definition of what is present in Christian Matrimony. It is not an
opinion. Rather, it is a refinement of what is truly there.
Use of artificial contraception removes these two ends. Within the
realm of procreative love, the couple intends to remove fertility
from the sexual union. specifically, the couple is not open to the
possibility of new life and will deliberately introduce a man-made
separation to reduce or eliminate any chance of conception.
The contraceptive couple also fails to express unitive love.
Because of the separating effect of contraceptive use, they are
not united. In the highest form of human commitment, and during
the most intimate expression of that commitment of love, there is
reservation, a holding back.
It is as if they say to one another: āI will not give myself to
you entirely. You can have all that I am except my fertility. This
you cannot have and so I will hold it back from you.ā Was not the
vow an expression of total giving? With this reservation, the
sexual union fails to be an expression of total giving, and
therefore of total love.
Selflessness leaves the marriage, and selfishness enters. If there
is selfishness during the most intimate expression of marital
love, then there will be selfishness elsewhere. This is because
selfishness is like cancer. It does not remain stagnant, but grows
and infiltrates every area of marriage, destroying the Christ-like
beauty of a totally united love.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Good Article Christcnection1Holly , heres another.
aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/shms/faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/HumanaeVitae/Contraception.pdf
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Whenever one meaning, unitive or procreative, is absent, the other meaning is harmed, but not absent. So contraceptive sexual relations would still retain the unitive meaning, but not in its fullest sense.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Excellent question.
And pretty well answered so far. Intent is an important consideration.
In the case of condoms, there has been much discussion on this forum, some good, some ridiculous and much in-between.
For example, it has been posited that the unitive aspect of the act is negated by use of a condom, not because of the intent (because the intent of NFP too is to avoid pregnancy), but because there is a physical barrier between the spouses. Yet, a perforated condom for the purposes of semen evaluation is allowed. Same physical barrier between the partners; a little hole does negate the contraceptive effect to some extent but does not remove the barrier.
Not a good argument, Iām afraid.
So, methinks intent as far as being open is the key issue; unitive and procreative should not be separated, but itās a somewhat more difficult concept to perhaps understand and explain without some apparent contradictions.
All in all, I think too many people are all too interested in what goes on in the bedrooms of others; itās pretty clear what the Church teaches, and really between that couple and the Almighty whether or not they are following his directives. IHMO, of course.
And pretty well answered so far. Intent is an important consideration.
In the case of condoms, there has been much discussion on this forum, some good, some ridiculous and much in-between.
For example, it has been posited that the unitive aspect of the act is negated by use of a condom, not because of the intent (because the intent of NFP too is to avoid pregnancy), but because there is a physical barrier between the spouses. Yet, a perforated condom for the purposes of semen evaluation is allowed. Same physical barrier between the partners; a little hole does negate the contraceptive effect to some extent but does not remove the barrier.
Not a good argument, Iām afraid.
So, methinks intent as far as being open is the key issue; unitive and procreative should not be separated, but itās a somewhat more difficult concept to perhaps understand and explain without some apparent contradictions.
All in all, I think too many people are all too interested in what goes on in the bedrooms of others; itās pretty clear what the Church teaches, and really between that couple and the Almighty whether or not they are following his directives. IHMO, of course.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
yes it is true the two purposes of marriage cannot be separated. It is also true that the way contraception works is by creating a barrier, either mechanical, physical, chemical all three between the partners which prevents complete union, and therefore the complete self-emptying, self-gift, and reception of the mutual gift is impossible.
the act or habit moreover creates a barrier between Godās grace and the spouses, so that the grace natural to the sacrament of matrimony is unable to operate, and the marriage is running on its own steam. The act or habit also by its very nature is selfish because it places oneās own pleasure above the God given purpose of intercourse and as such is counter-productive of true love and intimacy. Intimacy thrives in a climate of self-giving which has its best expression outside the marriage bed in self-denial and self-control, the impetus that drives the daily work of marriage, caring for the family. So a lot more is being destroyed than the possibility of new life. The very fabric of marriage itself is torn.
the act or habit moreover creates a barrier between Godās grace and the spouses, so that the grace natural to the sacrament of matrimony is unable to operate, and the marriage is running on its own steam. The act or habit also by its very nature is selfish because it places oneās own pleasure above the God given purpose of intercourse and as such is counter-productive of true love and intimacy. Intimacy thrives in a climate of self-giving which has its best expression outside the marriage bed in self-denial and self-control, the impetus that drives the daily work of marriage, caring for the family. So a lot more is being destroyed than the possibility of new life. The very fabric of marriage itself is torn.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
Yes!
You cannot unite with your spouse in the marital act by withholding a part of yourself in that act. You are withholding your fertility. As Christopher West has said, āprefer the sterilized momentary pleasure of that one orgasm than the life giving gift of your fertility.ā
John Paul II says in his Familiaris Consortio:
*āthe innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality." *
There is nothing more that I can add.
You cannot unite with your spouse in the marital act by withholding a part of yourself in that act. You are withholding your fertility. As Christopher West has said, āprefer the sterilized momentary pleasure of that one orgasm than the life giving gift of your fertility.ā
John Paul II says in his Familiaris Consortio:
*āthe innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality." *
There is nothing more that I can add.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
The long answer here is largely theological. The short answer is yes, contraception prevents unity.
Usually I like what EWTN has to offer but this time I have to say the article cited here has a few too many misunderstandings of Catholic teaching to be reliable. Procreation and unity are not just āequal endsā of marriage. They are the primary and secondary purposes of the marital act. Further, when procreation and unity are no longer possible (due to illness or injury) the marriage stays intact. The wording in the article, while trying to support another point, is misleading also.
The marital act is at primary a bodily act. The primary purpose is procreation. (Procreation means ordered towards life, or ordered towards the beginning.) Unity is mostly about the spirit. If it were merely about the union of sexual parts then simple penetration would suffice. We also know it is firstly an act of the body since we will not be given in marriage in heaven.
It is on some level accurate to say that while one is primary and the other secondary they are both equal. Primary only says that one happens first or is significant to the existence of the secondary or tertiary.
It can be argued, as Mr Conte did, that when one is removed the other is damaged, but remains. I tend to argue that when one is removed they are both removed. My argument is based on Genesis which says, ātwo become one.ā This seems to be speaking on all levels, a biological union of parts, a spiritual union of masculine and feminine souls, and a union of matter that becomes a whole new person.
Procreation seems to be tied to union even if actual reproduction doesnāt happen. In my studies of the nuptial meaning of the body it seems that Procreation and unity are as strongly bound together as are faith and works. One does not exist without the other. That seems to be one underlying message in Theology of the Body. It is not just about our sexual selves. It has also been said that the answers of heaven are written on our very bodies.
Usually I like what EWTN has to offer but this time I have to say the article cited here has a few too many misunderstandings of Catholic teaching to be reliable. Procreation and unity are not just āequal endsā of marriage. They are the primary and secondary purposes of the marital act. Further, when procreation and unity are no longer possible (due to illness or injury) the marriage stays intact. The wording in the article, while trying to support another point, is misleading also.
The marital act is at primary a bodily act. The primary purpose is procreation. (Procreation means ordered towards life, or ordered towards the beginning.) Unity is mostly about the spirit. If it were merely about the union of sexual parts then simple penetration would suffice. We also know it is firstly an act of the body since we will not be given in marriage in heaven.
It is on some level accurate to say that while one is primary and the other secondary they are both equal. Primary only says that one happens first or is significant to the existence of the secondary or tertiary.
It can be argued, as Mr Conte did, that when one is removed the other is damaged, but remains. I tend to argue that when one is removed they are both removed. My argument is based on Genesis which says, ātwo become one.ā This seems to be speaking on all levels, a biological union of parts, a spiritual union of masculine and feminine souls, and a union of matter that becomes a whole new person.
Procreation seems to be tied to union even if actual reproduction doesnāt happen. In my studies of the nuptial meaning of the body it seems that Procreation and unity are as strongly bound together as are faith and works. One does not exist without the other. That seems to be one underlying message in Theology of the Body. It is not just about our sexual selves. It has also been said that the answers of heaven are written on our very bodies.
M
manualman
Guest
Sin, almost by definition, reduces ones ability to give and receive love.
Since the unitive function of sex is inherently about the love, the sin of contraception definately damages the unitive function of married sex.
Since the unitive function of sex is inherently about the love, the sin of contraception definately damages the unitive function of married sex.
R
Rico_S
Guest
From a purely theological perspective, I think that argument can be made. From personal experienceā¦I donāt think it is true.Hi everyone. A Catholic friend of mine told me that contraception prevents sex from being unitive. Is this true? If so, how?
āRico
E
edward_george
Guest
If I may be so bold, why is your personal experience superior to a theological and ontological reality? Rather, why is your perception of your personal experience superior to a theological and ontological reality?
-ACEGC
C
Calliso
Guest
Yes but what about those who donlt want any part of our spouses ferlity? I donlt want my husbands nor does he want mine. How is it disunitive in that case?
M
manualman
Guest
The answer is right there in your own question.
C
Calliso
Guest
I guess I am a little slow I still donlt get itā¦ But I will read the other posts.The answer is right there in your own question.
N
nablaise
Guest
Unity, unitive means child. A child is the manifestation of the unity.
If you donāt want a child you donāt want unity. It is probably self-gratification in one form or an other.
It start in the heart. If you want a child but does not get one, it is still unitive because the heart was disposed for unity, may be God did not want it for his reasons. But if your heart is opposed to child, then even if you think you want unity, I think this concept of unity is incomplete or corrupt.
God bless
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
I guess I am a bit confused by this post. If you are Catholic and following the teachings of the Church, the simple solution to your question is to not have sex. Sex, as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is to be both unitive and procreative. Those two aspects of the marital act cannot be seperated.
To unite with your spouse in the marital embrace is to give of yourself totally to them. Free, totally, faithfully and fruitfully. Eliminating a part of this giving is to make this an act that is not complete. If you do not give your fertility to your spouse, you are not uniting with your spouse as we are called to, thus disrupting the act. It becomes a selfish act and not a selfless act, no longer an act of giving of oneself.
R
Rico_S
Guest
I think my intitial statement is a bit misleading. I donāt agree with the theological ārealityā that you and others have shared in this thread, though the argument can sometimes sound good. And, my own personal experience seems to agree with that assessment. However, I am sure others find the churchās theological argument quite convincing and their own personal experience would support that.
āRico
J
justusfive
Guest
I understand about the unitive and procreative aspects of our Catholic teachings, but I am hoping to post some questions here that I am hoping will provide some answers that I can use to defend this position more confidently.
What if a man and woman have four or five children and have shown eachother the love and respect a marriage deserves, but feel that another child will put even more stress on the family? Isnāt this couple acting responsibly by accepting their limitations and providing for the family they have been blessed with? Why couldnāt they use contraception to be responsible not to oppose the teachings of the Church?
What if a man and woman have four or five children and have shown eachother the love and respect a marriage deserves, but feel that another child will put even more stress on the family? Isnāt this couple acting responsibly by accepting their limitations and providing for the family they have been blessed with? Why couldnāt they use contraception to be responsible not to oppose the teachings of the Church?
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
Justusfive,
Welcome to CAF!
I would suggest that you start a new thread with your questions so as to give the proper attention in this thread to the initial question and your questions will get the attention that they deserve in a different thread.
Once you post it, I will be sure to respond to your questions.
- Status