Does contraception prevent sex from being unitive?

[LittleDeb]

Now, we cannot condemn contraception as not being open to life b/c we just established that being closed to life…that is not wanting kids…is ok in certain circumstances. It cannot be the “open to life” issue that makes the use of contraception evil.

It doesn’t logically follow at all! There is a big difference in intentially engaging in the marital act ONLY during infertile times and simply engaging in the martial act during an infertile time. Surely this is obvious?

–Rico

Okay, now I am seeing the disjoint for you! Others here are doing a fabulous job of explaining the rest about “open to life” and other misnomers. I will take a stab at explaining this.

A contraceptive act is not a marital act. That is the point. Let’s say we have a couple who was objectively infertile (let’s say wife is post ovulation for the month.) Said couple engages in an act using their sexual organs. (For the sake of argument the act is either vaginal intercourse with a condom or an act of oral copulation to male orgasm.) The point is the act itself is not the marital act!

It doesn’t matter if the end result was a baby or not. It matters that the act itself was not the marital act. The point the Church is trying to make is that contraception changes marriage! These couples are seldom, sometimes never engaging in the marital act! The marital act is a procreative, unitive act. It is on this foundation that the Church condemns all forms of contraception (including oral sex to male orgasm,) all forms of IVF, and all homosexual acts. They are not the marital act. Further, it even shows why fornication and adultery are condemned. They are also not the marital act since they lack marriage!

If the 20th century showed us nothing else it showed us that having “fake” sexual activity makes for really bad bonding. Couples who engage in authentic marital acts each and every time have a much higher tendancy to stay married.

As has been said by people smarter than I. The biggest error in this debate is by starting wih the result: children, and working backwards. We must begin at the foundation of society: marriage. As we know the original family is a marriage.

 

[Good_Daughter]

But surely you see that intentionally only egaging in relations during infertile times is definitly withholding something from each other, even if the act itself is ordered properly and our fertility is not impaired, changed, inhibited.

Yes, by intentionally only engaging in relations during infertile times, spouses definitely are withholding something from each other- the marital embrace itself.

It’s not intrinsically wrong to forgo marital relations (just ask St. Paul). When we choose to forgo marital relations for spiritual reasons, fertility is not an issue. When we choose to forgo marital relations to avoid pregnancy, yet we can clearly identify times of cyclical infertility, why would we avoid relations at less fertile times?

Do you see NFP users as saying, “I accept your fertility when it’s low but reject it when it’s high.”?

 

[fix]

hmm. Well that is true and one way of saying it. I would say the reason we can’t practice NFP indescriminately is b/c we are called to be open to new life as the fruit of married life/love? Is this the same thing you are saying?

I agree. However, not wanting kids is not necessarily a sin. We can avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, the Church teaches this. When we want to avoid pregnancy the Church says NFP is ok to accomplish this.

Now, we cannot condemn contraception as not being open to life b/c we just established that being closed to life…that is not wanting kids…is ok in certain circumstances. It cannot be the “open to life” issue that makes the use of contraception evil.

It doesn’t logically follow at all! There is a big difference in intentially engaging in the marital act ONLY during infertile times and simply engaging in the martial act during an infertile time. Surely this is obvious?

–Rico

The marital act is open to life as long as it is not intentionally altered. If people use NFP info to avoid kids for no good reason the means used are not illicit, the intention is bad.

I would like to ask a moral theologian what sin is committed by only having sex during non fertile times for no good reason. I am thinking the sin is not contraception. The sin is selfishness.

The reason the Church asks people to use NFP for legitmate reasons is because we are to be generous in having children.

It seems you want to claim it is wrong to misuse NFP because that “proves” the Church says these acts are “closed to life”. I am saying She asks us to have legitimate reasons because we are not to avoid children for selfish desires, not because those acts are wrong.

 

[Rico_S]

Do you see NFP users as saying, “I accept your fertility when it’s low but reject it when it’s high.”?

Yes. It is a conditional acceptance of the other’s fertility. When my wife and I were practicing NFP, I would completely accept my wife’s fertility when we engaged in conjugal relations, only b/c I knew that her fertility was “low.” How can this practice be described as open to life, or a complete giving of one to the other?

Again, my point here was to point out that arguments like:

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: “I 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.” 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.

or this

the 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."

or this

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.

don’t ring true if NFP is an acceptable practice. For NFP is most assuredly a "closed to life"mentality (even if the actual act retains its procreative tendency) and one in which there is conditional complete self giving.

Look, I am not looking to show contraception is ok, or that NFP is wrong…I am just pointing out the shortfalls of the whole open to life argument I read on here when condemning contraception and/or praising NFP. It really doesn’t make sense, and, imo only serves to confuse people even further on the issue.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

The marital act is open to life as long as it is not intentionally altered.

Apparently, the whole “open to life” terminology, while seemingly obvious, acutally has an elusive meaning. I suspect many people on all sides of the argument think it means something different.

I would like to ask a moral theologian what sin is committed by only having sex during non fertile times for no good reason. I am thinking the sin is not contraception. The sin is selfishness.

This is a good point fix. I am sure the answer would be interesting, but I would think it depends on how you define the term “contraception”. FWIW, I have said before… that the real problem is NOT CONTRACEPTION, the real root sin, and one which is hardly addressed by the chruch, is **selfishness **by married couples unwilling to accept the fruit of married love. Contraception is just a tool used as a result of selfishness, and makes this sin easier to commit.

It seems you want to claim it is wrong to misuse NFP because that “proves” the Church says these acts are “closed to life”. I am saying She asks us to have legitimate reasons because we are not to avoid children for selfish desires, not because those acts are wrong.

See my previous post to Good Daughter.

–Rico

 

[fix]

I posted this before and it is from the year 1927 or there abouts:

may a married
couple restrict intercourse to such periods?

The answer is affirmative, with two qualifications. First, there
must be no desire of evading an obligation to have children, when
such exists; in other words, the reasons against pregnancy at
that time must be valid. Secondly, intercourse must be really and
genuinely desirable for good reasons at such times (though
clearly the need may not be so solemn as this language suggests)
and must serve to express and strengthen the sacramental love of
the man and woman. The habit of restricting intercourse to such
periods may become mixed with meanness and impurity, a selfish
prudence on one hand, mere indulgence on the other. But given
healthy motives, the action itself is sound and life-offering in
the sense described above, and intercourse at such periods is not
wrong…

 

[fix]

Apparently, the whole “open to life” terminology, while seemingly obvious, acutally has an elusive meaning. I suspect many people on all sides of the argument think it means something different.

I cannot see how the act is closed to life. The act retains its relation to life. I agree intention matters, but the means are not evil.

FWIW, I have said before… that the real problem is NOT CONTRACEPTION, the real root sin, and one which is hardly addressed by the chruch, is **selfishness **by married couples unwilling to accept the fruit of married love. Contraception is just a tool used as a result of selfishness, and makes this sin easier to commit.

Well, pride and selfishness are at the root of all sin I think. One point in these discussions is that the means used to regulate births can be good or evil. That is no small matter.

See my previous post to Good Daughter.

I am not agreeing sex during non fertile times is closed to life.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Personally, I think “open to life” needs to stop being used. It’s unclear what it really means and can be easily understood. “Ordered to procreation” is a much clearer statement of truth, if it’s understood that “procreation” doesn’t mean “to procreate”, it’s just the state of being able to procreate should fertility be there. So each act of the marital embrace can be ordered to procreation, even if the woman or the man is infertile, because the act can be done in the way it was designed by God.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Yes. It is a conditional acceptance of the other’s fertility. When my wife and I were practicing NFP, I would completely accept my wife’s fertility when we engaged in conjugal relations, only b/c I knew that her fertility was “low.” How can this practice be described as open to life, or a complete giving of one to the other?

It seems, by your definition, the only way for a couple to practice “a complete giving of one to the other” is a constant marital embrace. Don’t we give to each other in our daily work, by caring for our children and in holding back from the marital embrace when a possible pregnancy would be imprudent? Sometimes abstinence is the most giving choice.

Using NFP, a couple keeps the marital embrace open to the transmission of life. Catholicism teaches that couples themselves however, are not necessarily obligated to be “open to life” (pregnancy).

Complete acceptance of each other’s fertility is ideal for a maried couple. Conditional acceptance of fertility (through NFP) is necessary for birth control purposes and, therefore, permitted with serious reason. The complete rejection of fertility inherent to contraception is what Catholicism teaches against.

 

[rskempf]

This thread seems mature but I wanted to add one point. It may be redundant but here it goes.

Contraception disrupts marriage and usually causes the loss of sacramental grace. This loss of grace makes married life more difficult and is, in turn, the cause of much of the “culture of divorce.”

God bless you all!

Rick