Family synod: Married couple ask Pope to clear up ‘confusion’ on contraception

[JimG]

Why are infertile couples treated the same? Why is the state of the couple’s fertility not taken into account, when the whole teaching* is all about respecting fertility*?

And, as to God’s design for sex - why did He make the parts work perfectly well alone, without need for the other, if you follow my drift? Why did he make them work alone, and then the Church tell us not to do that. is it an artifact of the fall? Is it our sinful nature? Seems like we are set up to fail.

The teaching is not simply about respecting fertility. After all, infertility is not even an impediment to marriage. But antecedent and permanent impotence is. The teaching is about respect for the integrity of the marital act.

 

[Arandur]

It is possible to use contraception and be open to life in the same way a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy.

This teaching has baffled me since High School religion class. I know I’m not alone either.

Smoking is a misuse of the lungs that can permanently damage to only way to get oxygen to our blood. Why isn’t smoking cigarettes not on the same level of sinfulness as contraception and non-procreative sex?

What do you think of my analogy earlier on this page that the difference between contraception and NFP is similar to the difference between bulimia/food orgies and diet and exercise?

Artificial contraception is an intentional act to sterilize sex, to deliberately attempt to make it infertile, to divorce sex from babies, to use sex for pleasure while attempting to frustrate any potential for life.

NFP is simply abstinence during certain periods of time. It’s not, like artificial contraception, having sex but forcibly trying to prevent babies. It’s NOT having sex during fertile times. It’s self control and sacrifice while respecting sex (while artificial contraception is the opposite of those).

The difference between artificial contraception and NFP is also the difference between active and passive. Morally, that is often a huge difference.

NFP respects the fertility of sex because it is not trying to impose a barrier to that fertility. It’s just choosing a time. Artificial contraception does NOT respect the fertility of sex because it deliberately attempts to frustrate that.

PaulinVA:

Why are infertile couples treated the same? Why is the state of the couple’s fertility not taken into account, when the whole teaching is all about respecting fertility?

Why does it need to be taken into account? Infertile couples aren’t doing anything to deliberately frustrate the fertility of sex. They’re not intentionally sterilizing it. They’re imposing no barrier.

What’s the problem? Why does anything special need to be addressed, since the same principle applies?

PaulinVA:

And, as to God’s design for sex - why did He make the parts work perfectly well alone, without need for the other, if you follow my drift? Why did he make them work alone, and then the Church tell us not to do that. is it an artifact of the fall? Is it our sinful nature? Seems like we are set up to fail.

What do you mean, they work alone? Yes, they can be stimulated alone, but that’s not the full purpose.

Your taste buds can be stimulated by candy, but receiving pleasurable taste is not the full purpose of your mouth and taste buds.

More directly at hand, the sex organs can be “used” in various ways, but many obviously are not how they were designed to work–such as being applied to animals, or excretory orifices.

Thus, self-stimulation for pleasure is certainly not the fulfillment of the sex organ. That’s not why it was designed (just for pleasure). It is obviously designed to physically fit with a complementary partner organ, with so many physiological functions carefully designed to produce offspring under the right conditions.

The human reproductive organs were not designed to be used with non-human animals (even though some might derive pleasure from the “pleasurable” aspect “working alone,” as you say), so the Church recognizes that such an application is intrinsically disordered. So, too, with many other uses.

But it’s not intended to be a collection of negatives. It’s really supposed to be a focus on the positive: God created sex as a wonderful, powerful, beautifully- and intricately-designed physical and spiritual act to unite a man and a woman more closely than any other physical bond, and in such a way that we can participate in the greatest co-creation with God possible: the generation of another child of God with an immortal soul.

That is why sex is so sacred and so good. That’s why degrading it by trying to frustrate its purpose and use it in lesser, harmful contexts is wrong. It cheapens sex, intimacy, human relationships, and relationship with God, imposing barriers.

 

[TMC]

So what are the reasons that you have arrived at after “much thought?” What is your well-thought-out theology of sexuality regarding contraception?
I suppose it is possible that you could be right and Natural Law, the Pope and Magisterium and the Holy Spirit that guides them could be wrong…
But highly more probably that opposing views simply misunderstand and are faulty in reasoning.

I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is wrong. I am saying that the vast majority of the Church is correct, and that those in the Magisterium that are continuing with the current doctrine are wrong.

It does not require an entire theology of sexuality to see that. Let’s face it, the doctrine makes no sense. Why must both the procreative and unitive aspects be present together or neither are present at all? That is not true for any other human activity. Lot’s of actions have multiple purposes and goods that can be present singly or together. Why is it only sex that must be both/and or neither?

And the idea of procreative as presented in the doctrine makes even less sense. As PaulinVA has pointed out, it is based on an understanding of reproduction that is hundreds of years out of date. But even within that framework, it makes no sense. What is procreative? It is not based on intent or desire - it is permissible to have sex intending and fervently desiring that no children result. It is not truly based on actions - couples using so-called “natural” birth control put a lot more work into avoiding pregnancy than couples that use modern birth control methods. It is not based on actual possibility - it is permissible to have sex knowing that it is impossible that children will result. In fact, it is far more possible that sex between 25 year olds using a condom will result in a child than it is that sex between 70 year olds without a condom will. And odds are that the 70 year olds are less open to having children than the 25 year olds. But the first is supposedly a mortal sin, and the second is just fine. That makes absolutely no sense.

In my view, the Church needs to relook at the entire doctrine and seriously reassess it. Until then, the vast majority of Catholics will simply reject it; and I think they are justified in doing so.

 

[Ed_Silvia]

Until then, the vast majority of Catholics will simply reject it; and I think they are justified in doing so.

Isn’t this essentially what the married couple said to the Pope? This is the elephant in the room. The vast majority already have rejected it, present majority excluded.

 

[JimG]

The procreative and unitive aspects of sex are invariably present together if we take no action to prevent conception. Unitive means that the man and woman are physically united in the marital act. Procreation can follow from that act.

 

[Genesis315]

The Church also rejects things that are procreative, but not unitive, like IVF, cloning, etc.

 

[JimG]

The Church also rejects things that are procreative, but not unitive, like IVF, cloning, etc.

Yes, exactly so. When the procreative and unitive aspects are separated from the natural marital act, bad things follow.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, surgery, accident, menopause can make it** impossible **for conception. I assumed that, like many people, you were using “open to life” to mean that relations had to end a certain way, which I am saying makes no sense in a case of permanent infertility. If you are using “open to life” to only refer to happily accepting children as they are conceived, I agree with you.

I really get frustrated with folks on other discussions that distort the meaning of words to suit their own agenda and it ends up obscuring the true meaning of Catholic teaching. For example those who claim that NFP can be contraceptive. And the other deviant claim that procreative means every act is licit if it ends the final moment in the usual place.

The way I’ve always understood procreative is in accordance with the Latin ‘for’ creation. It is not restricted to ‘creative’ or ‘fecund’ or physical fertile at any given time… but that the act of intercourse is always ‘a testament to’ our creativity. It speaks of the value of the ritual aspect of our actions and their meaning for the ‘Body of Christ’. We continue throughout our lives to give testament to this wonderful gift of creativity in a ritual way, even after fertility subsides.

Catholics are all about the significance of ritual meaning as esteeming the really vital element within all of our sacraments. That is why sexual intercourse must in all its movements, whether the fertility is present at that time or not, continue as ‘a testament’ to the creative sexual gift of the human being.

I get irritated when I see that supposedly Catholic catch phrase “all is licit so long as the penis ejaculates into the vagina”. It misrepresents the fullness of meaning of the act of intercourse in Catholic teaching.

 

[snowdrop]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/10/09/family-synod-married-couple-ask-pope-to-clear-up-confusion-on-contraception/

Family synod: Married couple ask Pope to clear up ‘confusion’ on contraception

By FRANCIS X ROCCA on Thursday, 9 October 2014

A married couple from Brazil told Pope Francis and the family synod that the Church should stop giving “contradictory advice” on birth control and help Catholics obey Church teaching against contraception.

On the same morning, one of the synod’s leaders spoke forcefully against a widespread “contraceptive mentality” that has led many Catholics to think the use of artificial birth control is not a sin.

Arturo and Hermelinda As Zamberline, married for 41 years with three children, addressed the synod during the morning session today. The designated subject for the session was the “pastoral challenges concerning an openness to life”.

“We must admit without fear that many Catholic couples, even those who seek to live their marriage seriously, do not feel obligated to use only the natural methods” of birth control condoned by the Church, said the Zamberlines, leaders in their country of an international Catholic movement, Teams of Our Lady. “We must add that generally they are not questioned by their confessors” on the subject.

The Zamberlines, who are participating in the synod as non-voting auditors, said the “rhythm of life” today makes it difficult to find time to learn natural methods of family planning, which they said have acquired an “unjust reputation of being unreliable,” because they are badly explained and thus badly practiced.

“The great majority of couples do not reject the use of contraceptive methods. In general, they do not consider them a moral problem,” the Zamberlines said.

The Brazilian couple concluded with an appeal to the Pope and the synod to help Catholics understand and obey Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical by Paul VI that affirmed Church teaching against contraception.

“If couples, as well as clergy, could at least find illumination and support, that would already be a great encouragement. Often, contradictory advice only aggravates their confusion. We ask, may the magisterium hasten to give priests and faithful the major lines of a pastoral teaching programme to help people adopt and observe the principles laid out in ‘Humanae Vitae,’” the Zamberlines said.

In remarks introducing the couple to the assembly, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois of Paris, one of three synod presidents appointed by the Pope, said Catholic couples “often do not believe that the use of contraceptive methods is a sin and therefore they tend not to speak of them in confession and so they receive Communion untroubled.”

“It is necessary to encourage a mentality of openness to life to thwart the contraceptive mentality and the spread of an individualist anthropological model that in certain countries has led to a strong demographic drop whose social and human consequences are not sufficiently considered today,” the cardinal said.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I really get frustrated with folks on other discussions that distort the meaning of words to suit their own agenda and it ends up obscuring the true meaning of Catholic teaching. For example those who claim that NFP can be contraceptive. And the other deviant claim that procreative means every act is licit if it ends the final moment in the usual place.

The way I’ve always understood procreative is in accordance with the Latin ‘for’ creation. It is not restricted to ‘creative’ or ‘fecund’ or physical fertile at any given time… but that the act of intercourse is always ‘a testament to’ our creativity. It speaks of the value of the ritual aspect of our actions and their meaning for the ‘Body of Christ’. We continue throughout our lives to give testament to this wonderful gift of creativity in a ritual way, even after fertility subsides.

Catholics are all about the significance of ritual meaning as esteeming the really vital element within all of our sacraments. That is why sexual intercourse must in all its movements, whether the fertility is present at that time or not, continue as ‘a testament’ to the creative sexual gift of the human being.

I get irritated when I see that supposedly Catholic catch phrase “all is licit so long as the penis ejaculates into the vagina”. It misrepresents the fullness of meaning of the act of intercourse in Catholic teaching.

Beautifully stated,thank you!

 

[snowdrop]

I agree with both of these posts. After long and sober reflection, and much study, I have come to the conclusion that the reason I (and apparently the vast majority) do not understand this teaching is that is not correct.

My reply to the married couple who asked Pope Francis to clear up confusion on contraception.
For anyone to understand and live up to the Encyclical Humane Vitae, must first be well grounded in the Catholic Faith. I don’t hear the word Mortal Sin mentioned either in a religion class or from a priest or deacon in their homilies. In fact I don’t even hear the word sin spoken anymore.

 

[shelby_sun]

The intent is the same no matter ow much you strive or suffer, the intert or the purpose is still the same!!!

 

[PaulinVA]

LongingSoul:

Quote:
.
Catholics are all about the significance of ritual meaning as esteeming the really vital element within all of our sacraments. That is why sexual intercourse must in all its movements, whether the fertility is present at that time or not, continue as ‘a testament’ to the creative sexual gift of the human being.

I get irritated when I see that supposedly Catholic catch phrase “all is licit so long as the penis ejaculates into the vagina”. It misrepresents the fullness of meaning of the act of intercourse in Catholic teaching.

This is all great. But, why do you think this?

Now, I understand that the church has to hold this position because it is the line of defense against gay sex, against gay marriage. If infertility has different rules, then that opens the door for a lot of other things. So it’s a gateway position. But, in holding the position, the Church has to put so much more meaning into a biological function.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Arandur]

This is all great. But, why do you think this?

Do you think otherwise? Why?

I thought there was a post from another, earlier participant (TMC?) that continued with vague assertions that the Church was wrong, but didn’t include any reasons for holding a contrary belief.

So here’s at least my second request to hear what reasons anyone may have to reject natural sex as God designed in favor of artificially sterilized sex (and the morality thereof).

And if we who support the Church’s teachings have to provide reasons, it would be nice to have those reasons responded to if we’re going to have a discussion (currently nearly all reasons being provided for Church teaching seem to be ignored without direct response or attempt at refutation by those who dissent).

I’ll mention briefly that I used to be in the “the Church’s position is ridiculous on contraception” camp. Then I actually listened to the Church, considered the reasons, and especially found the evidence of the effects of the contraceptive culture. I realized that I was being an idiot. I had not even really thought through the position. I had dismissed the Church’s position without a reasonable hearing. And I was heavily influenced by the sex-obsessed culture’s want for sterilized, responsibility-free (and sin-free) sex. I had not realized how deeply the contraceptive mentality had even affected me.

So I come at this as a convert, having been in that position and now finding that the camp I belonged to previously not only had no merit (indeed, not even any real arguments), but was stubborn, intellectually dishonest, faithless, cynical, blind, and foolish.

PaulinVA:

Now, I understand that the church has to hold this position because it is the line of defense against gay sex, against gay marriage. If infertility has different rules, then that opens the door for a lot of other things. So it’s a gateway position. But, in holding the position, the Church has to put so much more meaning into a biological function.

This sounds like the previous comment:

In terms of the procreative part, the undo emphasis on semen and where it ends up is baffling given modern knowledge.

I don’t know where either assertion is coming from. The Church’s position was not defined in opposition to gay sex or gay marriage. It is a millennia-old position that came about long before the current absurdities with relation to same-sex relations (which was so universally understood to be disordered that it hardly was worth mentioning; and even in more ancient, permissive Greek times, had no relation to marriage).

I’ve also never seen a teaching from the Church, modern or ancient, that had any concern for “semen consists of little people.” Certainly none of the explanations given here.

I and several others have explained that there aren’t “different rules” for infertile couples. That it’s just a matter of having sex with respect for nature, God’s design, and one’s spouse; and not artificially trying to sterilize it or rob it of its nature and fruitfulness. If you don’t think those explanations are valid, please provide a counterargument.

 

[Megan7]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/10/09/family-synod-married-couple-ask-pope-to-clear-up-confusion-on-contraception/

Family synod: Married couple ask Pope to clear up ‘confusion’ on contraception

By FRANCIS X ROCCA on Thursday, 9 October 2014

A married couple from Brazil told Pope Francis and the family synod that the Church should stop giving “contradictory advice” on birth control and help Catholics obey Church teaching against contraception.

On the same morning, one of the synod’s leaders spoke forcefully against a widespread “contraceptive mentality” that has led many Catholics to think the use of artificial birth control is not a sin.

Arturo and Hermelinda As Zamberline, married for 41 years with three children, addressed the synod during the morning session today. The designated subject for the session was the “pastoral challenges concerning an openness to life”.

“We must admit without fear that many Catholic couples, even those who seek to live their marriage seriously, do not feel obligated to use only the natural methods” of birth control condoned by the Church, said the Zamberlines, leaders in their country of an international Catholic movement, Teams of Our Lady. “We must add that generally they are not questioned by their confessors” on the subject.

The Zamberlines, who are participating in the synod as non-voting auditors, said the “rhythm of life” today makes it difficult to find time to learn natural methods of family planning, which they said have acquired an “unjust reputation of being unreliable,” because they are badly explained and thus badly practiced.

“The great majority of couples do not reject the use of contraceptive methods. In general, they do not consider them a moral problem,” the Zamberlines said.

The Brazilian couple concluded with an appeal to the Pope and the synod to help Catholics understand and obey Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical by Paul VI that affirmed Church teaching against contraception.

“If couples, as well as clergy, could at least find illumination and support, that would already be a great encouragement. Often, contradictory advice only aggravates their confusion. We ask, may the magisterium hasten to give priests and faithful the major lines of a pastoral teaching programme to help people adopt and observe the principles laid out in ‘Humanae Vitae,’” the Zamberlines said.

In remarks introducing the couple to the assembly, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois of Paris, one of three synod presidents appointed by the Pope, said Catholic couples “often do not believe that the use of contraceptive methods is a sin and therefore they tend not to speak of them in confession and so they receive Communion untroubled.”

“It is necessary to encourage a mentality of openness to life to thwart the contraceptive mentality and the spread of an individualist anthropological model that in certain countries has led to a strong demographic drop whose social and human consequences are not sufficiently considered today,” the cardinal said.

Thanks for the link & God Bless.

 

[Megan7]

The sex act should always be unitive,regardless of whether the woman is or isn’t of childbearing age. This is to avoid the act becoming a selfish act,each partner should always consider the other.Also, re the procreative aspect,nothing is impossible with God,therefore couples should always be open to life.

Exactly! I have read of rare examples of women having children in their early & even
late 50’s. There are a couple of early 60’s cases. So, with God nothing is out of the question. Do we know how old Saint Anne was? How about Saint Elizabeth?

Anyway, I am not an expert on this subject & I am single. But, I thought I would contribute the above.

God bless.

 

[PaulinVA]

Do you think otherwise? Why?

I thought there was a post from another, earlier participant (TMC?) that continued with vague assertions that the Church was wrong, but didn’t include any reasons for holding a contrary belief.

So here’s at least my second request to hear what reasons anyone may have to reject natural sex as God designed in favor of artificially sterilized sex (and the morality thereof).

I am not saying that I disagree with the Church’s teaching - well, at least i assent to it. I am faithful to the Church’s teaching on contraception and sexual practice.

i just want to hear why people believe these things - how do they understand them in their minds.

And if we who support the Church’s teachings have to provide reasons, it would be nice to have those reasons responded to if we’re going to have a discussion (currently nearly all reasons being provided for Church teaching seem to be ignored without direct response or attempt at refutation by those who dissent).

I have no desire to take the opposite side of the Church’s position in any debate. As you said, I’d like a discussion. I’d like more than every poster parroting the Church’s position without any explanatory notes or references or personal discussion on why the Church’s position makes sense.

I don’t know where either assertion is coming from. The Church’s position was not defined in opposition to gay sex or gay marriage. It is a millennia-old position that came about long before the current absurdities with relation to same-sex relations (which was so universally understood to be disordered that it hardly was worth mentioning; and even in more ancient, permissive Greek times, had no relation to marriage).

Don’t be so sure that the greatest doctors of the Church were unaware of the implications of what they wrote. Not because they were gay (they weren’t) but that they were aware of the practice.

I’ve also never seen a teaching from the Church, modern or ancient, that had any concern for “semen consists of little people.” Certainly none of the explanations given here.

Google “semen consists of little people” and read a little bit about what was thought in the 1400-1600s and later, as people were trying to understand conception. This line of reason could have influenced Catholic thought as well.

I and several others have explained that there aren’t “different rules” for infertile couples. That it’s just a matter of having sex with respect for nature, God’s design, and one’s spouse; and not artificially trying to sterilize it or rob it of its nature and fruitfulness. If you don’t think those explanations are valid, please provide a counterargument.

But you haven’t provided an argument to counter if I wanted to! You’ve parroted a position. Why aren’t there different rules? If my wife is post menopausal or infertile, why does it matter whether I waste my seed inside her or outside her? It’s wasted either way. Why does it matter? If an older women is infertile and intercourse is painful and therefore not unitive, why is the couple only allowed sexual expression that is sterile and not unitive? Seems like everyone else is prohibited from that.

 

[Vico]

Then there is really only one end: procreation. Adding the unitive part seems superfluous to me if it can’t be unitive without being procreative. It would make more sense if the teaching was that it’s unitive through procreation but that’s not what is taught. I’m thinking the unitive part was added to make the Catholic view of sex less utilitarian but it fails in my opinion.

I too think it’s between the husband and wife what is unitive. Contraception and “everything but…” acts don’t necessarily negate being open to life. Sex is social as well as procreative.

Saint Augustine’s traditional three goods are: fidelity, children, and sacrament.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, expressed three (Whether matrimony is fittingly named?): joining, wedding, offspring.

• First, its essence, which is a joining together, and in reference to this it is called the “conjugal union”;
• secondly, its cause, which is the wedding, and in reference to this it is called the “nuptial union” from “nubo” *The original meaning of ‘nubo’ is ‘to veil’], because at the wedding ceremony, whereby the marriage is completed, the heads of those who are wedded are covered with a veil *This is still done in some countries];
• thirdly, the effect, which is the offspring, and in reference to this it is called “matrimony,” as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 26), because “a woman’s sole purpose in marrying should be motherhood.”

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum589.htm

The 1917 Canon Law in # 1013 gaverimary end: procreation and education of children.
Secondary end: mutual support and remedy of concupiscence.
Essential properties: unity and indissolubility, firmness by reason of the sacrament.

The 1983 Canon Law # 1055 and 1056 re-expressed that: Ordered by nature to: the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring
Essential properties: unity and indissolubility, firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Evangelium Vitae, No. 23, of Pope John Paul II: Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited; from being the sign, place and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus, the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way, the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the ‘enemy’ to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child ‘at all costs,’ and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is all great. But, why do you think this?

Now, I understand that the church has to hold this position because it is the line of defense against gay sex, against gay marriage. If infertility has different rules, then that opens the door for a lot of other things. So it’s a gateway position. But, in holding the position, the Church has to put so much more meaning into a biological function.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I am so confused by this post.

Is there some way you can elaborate on what your point in it is? Because I took away from it that your point is that the Church holds a position so as not to lose a gay marriage issue.and not on it’s own merits or history of the Church?

Please clarify. This post really brought out strong emotions in me.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am so confused by this post.

Is there some way you can elaborate on what your point in it is? Because I took away from it that your point is that the Church holds a position so as not to lose a gay marriage issue.and not on it’s own merits or history of the Church?

Please clarify. This post really brought out strong emotions in me.

I don’t mean to upset, Hoosier Daddy.

As we go through life, we experience different things. It’s like a continuum. My wife and I are in the post-menopausal phase of our marriage, of our fertility. Within that context, and the discussions about contraception, I am exploring the idea that the Church has a one-size-fits-all teaching on fertility and married relations.

Now, the Church knows that every married couple is not fertile. It knows that after a certain age, every married couple is not fertile. But, each couple is to act as if they are fertile. In what way? By only having relations that are “ordered towards procreation”, in that there is a finishing in the correct way. But, I struggle to understand why. Why should a couple who is not fertile, can not procreate, have to ensure that every act is “procreative” as well as unitive? This emphasis on the man’s contribution, and where it ends up, is very legalistic, and frankly a little patriarchal.

I was further speculating that, even with the knowledge of science, the Church can not suddenly say if you are infertile you need not finish the correct way because procreation is off the table. The reason? That opens up the possibility that sexual expressions between other classes of infertile people (gays, for instance) could perhaps in some instances, be licit. I’m not saying it is, just that some people could argue that.

Does the Church hold a position as it has for hundreds of years? Yes.