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

[vsedriver]

Exactly. If God wants someone to get pregnant they will regardless of circumstances or our wishes.

The difference is that with ABC you are telling God that YOU are IN CHARGE because you interfere with his natural creation and the purpose of sex. With NFP you are leaving God in charge, by working with his natural creation and keeping the purpose of sex unthwarted.

Fertility is not a requirement to work with God’s purpose of sex, since God himself has made a woman’s fertile times limited.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

at what point does sexual expression cease to be unitive and become mutual masturbation?

if it is ordered toward procreation, even if the woman is infertile, it is not mutual masturbation.

I think many consider mutual masturbation as unitive.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

I don’t really know why I’ve always had such conviction regarding sexual chastity. When I was young I thought I may have had a religious calling and as soon as I left school I approached the Sisters of St Joseph. Ultimately I was counselled to live and work for a few years in the world as part of my discernment. As a result of that, I discerned a clear desire to experience myself as a wife and mother… more than as a ‘bride’ of Christ. But I never have really lost that first longing to experience myself as Christs bride. Perhaps for that reason I feel the sacred nature of sexual expression. I don’t know.

I took up smoking as a young traveller. I found smoking the most pleasurable passtime and smoked a lot. Tried to give it up lots of times but couldn’t. Then I became pregnant and the minute I found out I’ve never taken another drag since. I’ve always missed it though. One of my sons is a filthy smoker and whenever he goes out and lights up I’m taken back to those wonderful pleasurefilled moments. That first drag in the morning, the wispy curls of smoke in thier slow dance skyward, Heaven. I joke to my husband that if I’m ever diagnosed with a terminal illness, I’m going to smoke again. But in reality, that is the last thing I’d do with my last days because it’s not about not getting cancer, or the yellow fingers or smokers wrinkles and stinky clothes. It’s about understanding the gift of life God gave us, the temple that our body is made to be. t’s about identifying with our participation in the communion of saints. Practicing chastity is more than about avoiding the physical consequences of sex. It is about honouring the gift of sexual expression and the body as a temple devoted to the mission of Christ and our eternal destination.

“This emphasis on the man’s contribution, and where it ends up, is very legalistic, and frankly a little patriarchal.”

I too identify this mantra as misleading and probably more, utilitarian. The entire act is meaningful in the Christian marriage… not just ejaculation. I see this new emphasis as being the product of lust.

 

[JimG]

at what point does sexual expression cease to be unitive and become mutual masturbation?

if it is ordered toward procreation, even if the woman is infertile, it is not mutual masturbation.

I think many consider mutual masturbation as unitive.

Not to be overly graphic, but it seems to me that a sexual expression which is unitive is always ordered to procreation. In other words, if man and woman are united in a normal marital union, their bodies are united in physical way that cannot help but be ordered to procreation. I don’t think that ‘unitive’ denotes our emotional state or personal pleasures. It describes the physical marital union between man and woman.

 

[PaulinVA]

Not to be overly graphic, but it seems to me that a sexual expression which is unitive is always ordered to procreation. In other words, if man and woman are united in a normal marital union, their bodies are united in physical way that cannot help but be ordered to procreation. I don’t think that ‘unitive’ denotes our emotional state or personal pleasures. It describes the physical marital union between man and woman.

If that’s the case, then “unitive and procreative” is redundant because it means the same thing.

There are sexual expressions that can be unitive between a couple that don’t end the correct way, and are, according to the Church, not permitted.

 

[LongingSoul]

If that’s the case, then “unitive and procreative” is redundant because it means the same thing.

There are sexual expressions that can be unitive between a couple that don’t end the correct way, and are, according to the Church, not permitted.

Unitive in the theological sense is expressed in conforming desires and actions obediently as if the soul was in its perfect state. That would mean that the act must be within marriage, not contraceptive and chaste. In that state, the act strengthens the spiritual oneness that the fleshly oneness seeks. The physical/emotional bonds that sex creates can come even when people are not married, contracepting and not chaste. These are not unitive bonds. They are not aided by grace or directed to marital unity.

 

[OraLabora]

Unitive in the theological sense is expressed in conforming desires and actions obediently as if the soul was in its perfect state. That would mean that the act must be within marriage, not contraceptive and chaste. In that state, the act strengthens the spiritual oneness that the fleshly oneness seeks. The physical/emotional bonds that sex creates can come even when people are not married, contracepting and not chaste. These are not unitive bonds. They are not aided by grace or directed to marital unity.

It’s also unitive in a much more direct sense: it is the only physiological process that requires two people to complete. For the purpose of that process, the husband and wife become one unit, I.e. “one flesh”, or in the singular, a couple. So it has an equally significant scientific basis.

 

[Arandur]

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

Many of us have been offering all kinds of reasons, not just parroting a simple policy position. There have been many of “explanatory notes,” “references,” and “personal discussion” offered.

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.

It was not an issue like it is today.

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.

The Church’s position has been since the beginning, with evidence in the NT and the ECFs as they opposed Roman practices of contraception. It had nothing to do with semen. It had to do with God’s purpose, cherishing life, and the dignity of humanity and the bonds of marital relations.

But you haven’t provided an argument to counter if I wanted to! You’ve parroted a position.

This is immensely frustrating. I don’t know what to make of it. Am I (and others) typing into the wind?

I have written several posts here. All contain reasons, explanations, arguments. I have not “parroted” a position. May I suggest rereading posts with an openness and intellectual honesty? If you continue to ignore the reasons given, I don’t see how we can have a real conversation.

When you go back and re-read, notice that most statements contain explanations of the viewpoints; these present reasons and informal arguments. Do we need to use language cues like “thus,” “so,” “because,” or logical listings of premises and conclusions (sometimes the posts have had these cues)? It’s much easier to just discuss and offer explanations of why the Church’s position is true, what God’s purpose for sex is. (and many posts have discussed the “why”)

Why aren’t there different rules?

I’ve explained this. And I’m confused about why you would want to make it more complicated, when you and some others seem to think the whole issue is made too complicated, anyway. I’m not the only one here who thinks the issue is actually simple and consistent. A few of us have answered this question directly, already. Stated even more succinctly, having sex naturally, without artificial sterilizing interference, according to the physical and spiritual design of sex, is the whole point. Keep it simple. Get married, love your spouse without lust, have natural relations, and welcome any children. There. Approved by God (and His Church).

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.

“Unitive” is more than a philosophical extrapolation. It’s also a fairly direct euphemism. A sex act is only unitive if the physical bodies actually unite! This is done naturally only via the conjugal joining of the complementary male and female sex organs. It’s pretty simple to see, biologically. And it’s exactly what Jesus referred to as the one-flesh union that existed “from the beginning,” making, through marriage consummation, male and female “one flesh” – pretty literally, as the man joins inside the woman.

Only that particular “use” of the sex organs is truly “unitive.” So that rules out “mutual masturbation” and other such acts.

 

[PaulinVA]

Arandur , thank you for your reply.

I am rereading Humanae Vitae. Maybe that will help.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s also unitive in a much more direct sense: it is the only physiological process that requires two people to complete. For the purpose of that process, the husband and wife become one unit, I.e. “one flesh”, or in the singular, a couple. So it has an equally significant scientific basis.

That union of bodies is essential to every sexual act for it to be unitive {and procreative}, that is true. However, that natural union of bodies can’t be unitive without the marriage. That’s were we get the erroneous argument that sex can have a unitive value without being procreative or marital.

 

[PaulinVA]

That union of bodies is essential to every sexual act for it to be unitive {and procreative}, that is true. However, that natural union of bodies can’t be unitive without the marriage. That’s were we get the erroneous argument that sex can have a unitive value without being procreative or marital.

Could you please cite the magisterial document that states this? It’s ilicit, but it’s not unitive? I thought the point was that unmarried sex is uniting two people who shouldn’t be united.

 

[LongingSoul]

Could you please cite the magisterial document that states this? It’s ilicit, but it’s not unitive? I thought the point was that unmarried sex is uniting two people who shouldn’t be united.

In the theological sense, the ‘unitive’ state comes with the ‘state of the perfect’.

The unitive way is the way of those who are in the state of the perfect, that is, those who have their minds so drawn away from all temporal things that they enjoy great peace, who are neither agitated by various desires nor moved by any great extent by passion, and who have their minds chiefly fixed on God and their attention turned, either always or very frequently, to Him. It is the union with God by love and the actual experience and exercise of that love. It is called the state of “perfect charity”, because souls who have reached that state are ever prompt in the exercise of charity by loving God habitually and by frequent and efficacious acts of that Divine virtue. It is called the “unitive” way because it is by love that the soul is united to God, and the more perfect the charity, the closer and more intimate is the union. Union with God is the principal study and endeavor of this state. It is of this union St. Paul speaks when he says: “He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.” (1 Corinthians 6:17). Souls thus united to God are penetrated by the highest motives of the theological and moral virtues. In every circumstance of their lives the supernatural motive which ought to guide their actions is ever present to their mind, and the actions are performed under its inspiration with a force of will which makes their accomplishment easy and even delightful.

newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm

There are certain virtues that pre date and inspire the unitive dimension and chastity is one.

***2337 *** Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

**The integrity of the person

2338** The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125

***Offenses against chastity

2351 ***Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.

I’m sorry that it’s a bit disjointed but hopefully it demonstrates that the state of the person in relation to the sexual act, either precludes or serves the unitive end of intercourse.

 

[Arandur]

It’s ilicit, but it’s not unitive? I thought the point was that unmarried sex is uniting two people who shouldn’t be united.

I think this misunderstanding stems from the idea you stated earlier that unitive merely = pleasureable. That’s not it at all. I don’t think you’ll be able to even begin to see the truth of the matter (and the Church’s position) until you can get past the idea that it’s just about pleasure, as if pleasure alone is unitive. After all, if your latter statement were correct, then sex would = marriage (at least the first time). But the Church doesn’t see it that way at all. It sees it as fornication, not marriage. I could get more in depth and give examples and such, but there have already been posts to that effect.

LongingSoul:

In the theological sense, the ‘unitive’ state comes with the ‘state of the perfect’.

I think you’re talking in your first excerpt about the Unitive Way, which is the highest and last of the Three Ways (the other two, if memory serves, being the Purgative Way and then the Illuminative Way). This is a different context than the “unitive” that we speak of in sex. The Unitive Way is speaking of union with God. The unitive aspect of sex is something different. It bears similarities theologically due to the nuptial nature of our relationship with God through Christ, but for purposes of this discussion, the senses are separate enough that I think we need to keep them distinct.

Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

This is really the direct answer, I think, to PaulinVA’s question. The unitive aspect of sexuality is bodily (the literal complementarity of the human sex organs conjugally united in a specific way, to become “one flesh”) AND a total, personal, spiritual self-gift that the physical act is meant to complete (since we are both body and spirit, united).

The total self-gift does not exist without the “complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman” (in monogamous marriage). That’s why sex outside of marriage is never truly unitive, and is, instead, and abuse of the gift of sexuality, a misuse of it, a lie. Physical intercourse tells each partner that they are giving of each other totally, joining together completely. When that is not true (because they are not committed, are holding something back, or are interposing a barrier like an artificial contraceptive), that act of intercourse is made into a lie. It gets turned in some amount to lust, using the other person for pleasure, because one or both parties aren’t totally giving themselves to the other, as the act signifies.

So that’s the unitive aspect. The other Catechism quotes start to get into the procreative, too. I’ll leave that be for now.

PaulinVA:

I am rereading Humanae Vitae. Maybe that will help.

It may. That’s a prophetic document, showing how correct the underlying understanding was by predicting the ill effects that we see today of the contraceptive mentality in the culture. But it’s not really a deep explanatory or catechetical text, not offering a whole lot for the defense.

Great lay Catholic speakers on the topic with much material explaining the reasons behind the Church’s teachings on sexuality include: Jason and Christalina Evert, Christopher West, Patrick Coffin (of Catholic Answers Live–his book Sex Au Naturale], Kimberley Hahn (who came to believe contraception was gravely wrong while undertaking her Theology master’s before she or Scott even considered becoming Catholic), Dr. Janice Smith, and two or three other women speakers that I can’t remember right now (though you should find if you start searching the web).

And then of course there’s the historical body of material, which includes condemnations of contraception (sometimes extremely harsh) from virtually every Christian denomination prior to the 1920s (yes, virtually all of the Protestants). It used to be that people understood sex. Our sex-obsessed culture now has no idea what it is. The culture hates children, is terrified of procreation, thinks “anything goes” with regards to sex, and thinks it just about pleasure. How far we have fallen.

Oh, that reminds me of a comment earlier on here about the supposed “vast majority” who reject the Church’s teaching on contraception. Well, for one, that’s mostly just in the West. Second, the sensis fidelium is still not a democracy–but even if it were, the consensus of all Christians everywhere throughout time strongly outvotes the modern perversions on this topic. One of the hallmarks of Orthodoxy is that which is true has been “held by all Catholics everywhere at all times.” That’s a generalization, but it speaks to the eternal consistency of the truth, and condemns the false cultural changes of any given time, like ours.

And lastly, I’d like to point out that Jesus, in John’s Revelation, send messages to the Seven Churches of Asia (minor) warning them that if they continued to reject the truth in doctrine or in action, their “lampstands” would be removed and given to another. And they were (those churches hardly exist in that region anymore). The Catholic Church is forever, but local churches can become corrupt and fall away; even if a “majority” in a region reject a certain teaching, that doesn’t make their dissident belief correct. We have proof from Revelation that this is not so.

If the US and Europe largely want to go the way of the Seven Churches in Revelation, well, that’s to our failure. Christ will not go along with it. We are subject to Him, not the other way around. Truth wins out and cannot be altered.

 

[PaulinVA]

Arandur and LongingSoul,

Thank you for your attempts at explaining this.

To reiterate my position in life - my wife and I are no longer, due to age, concerned with fertility. During the past decades we have, indeed, followed Church teaching, including caring for a son with a severe birth defect (found during ultrasound) whom we treated with respect from conception to his natural death.

I am not trying to justify anything that we might want to do - there is nothing in that respect on the table. So, it won’t change how we interact with each other. i am just questioning.

I should probably take this offline and do research on my own, and not air my own questions in public and possibly mislead others.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think you’re talking in your first excerpt about the Unitive Way, which is the highest and last of the Three Ways (the other two, if memory serves, being the Purgative Way and then the Illuminative Way). This is a different context than the “unitive” that we speak of in sex. The Unitive Way is speaking of union with God. The unitive aspect of sex is something different. It bears similarities theologically due to the nuptial nature of our relationship with God through Christ, but for purposes of this discussion, the senses are separate enough that I think we need to keep them distinct.

I disagree that the spiritual dimension ie. how the marital relationship seeks relationship with God… doesn’t have a part in this discussion. Pope St John Paul II has dragged us up to this level of discussion with his Theology of the Body lectures.

In fact, in the very first of the Wednesday lectures he introduces a question formed by the Pharisees to try and get Jesus to fumble with purely physiological explanations.

"Christ did not accept the discussion at the level at which his interlocutors tried to introduce it. In a certain sense he did not approve of the dimension that they tried to give the problem. He avoided getting caught up in juridico-casuistical controversies. On the contrary, he referred twice to “the beginning.” Acting in this way, he made a clear reference to the relative words in Genesis, which his interlocutors too knew by heart. From those words of the ancient revelation, Christ drew the conclusion and the talk ended.

From the beginning

1. “The beginning” means, therefore, that which Genesis speaks about. Christ quoted Genesis 1:27 in summary form: “In the beginning the Creator made them male and female.” The original passage reads textually as follows: “God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Subsequently, the Master referred to Genesis 2:24: “Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Quoting these words almost in full, Christ gave them an even more explicit normative meaning (since it could be supported that in Genesis they express de facto statements: “leaves. cleaves. they become one flesh”). The normative meaning is plausible since Christ did not confine himself only to the quotation itself, but added: “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” That “let not man put asunder” is decisive. In the light of these words of Christ, Genesis 2:24 sets forth the principle of the unity and indissolubility of marriage as the very content of the Word of God, expressed in the most ancient revelation.

The eternal law

1. It could be maintained at this point that the problem is exhausted, that Jesus Christ’s words confirm the eternal law formulated and set up by God from “the beginning” as the creation of man. It might also seem that the Master, confirming this original law of the Creator, did nothing but establish exclusively his own normative meaning, referring to the authority itself of the first Legislator. However, that significant expression “from the beginning,” repeated twice, clearly induced his interlocutors to reflect on the way in which man was formed in the mystery of creation, precisely as “male and female,” in order to understand correctly the normative sense of the words of Genesis. This is no less valid for the people of today than for those of that time. Therefore, in the present study, considering all this, we must put ourselves precisely in the position of Christ’s interlocutors today."
   ewtn.com.au/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb1.htm

The ‘unitive’ dimension of marriage directly relates to the ‘holiness’ or spiritual integrity of the marriage and is not only dependent on the natural act of intercourse, but the openness to life and the chastity of the spouses.

 

[LongingSoul]

I am not trying to justify anything that we might want to do - there is nothing in that respect on the table. So, it won’t change how we interact with each other. i am just questioning.

I should probably take this offline and do research on my own, and not air my own questions in public and possibly mislead others.

I realise this as you’ve mentioned your situation before also. Your difficulty is a common one and I’m faced with the challenge regularly at the hands of my three chickens. They are all in their 20’s and as yet unmarried but have questions regarding Church teachings which demand answers true to the teachings of Pope StJPII in my opinion. My three aren’t as invested in having a direct Magisterial teaching on every aspect to consider the truth of Mums words to this date, so I’ve had the pleasure of interpreting StJPs TOB in terms and language I’m comfortable with.

(My sympathies for the loss of your son, Paul)

 

[PaulinVA]

I realize this as you’ve mentioned your situation before also. Your difficulty is a common one and I’m faced with the challenge regularly at the hands of my three chickens. They are all in their 20’s and as yet unmarried but have questions regarding Church teachings which demand answers true to the teachings of Pope StJPII in my opinion. My three aren’t as invested in having a direct Magisterial teaching on every aspect to consider the truth of Mums words to this date, so I’ve had the pleasure of interpreting StJPs TOB in terms and language I’m comfortable with.

We, too, are trying to explain things to our kids, who are late teens/twenties. they ask hard questions, too.

(My sympathies for the loss of your son, Paul)

Thank you. He made us who we are, for good and for bad. Taking care of him according to the Church’s teachings on bioethics was the greatest thing my wife and I have ever done (she is a saint). BUT, having something “defective” come from your “fleshy union” can really throw one for a loop.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

As a married husband who also has studied the after effects of HV in my country of Canada, I am glad to hear that this is being asked. Shortly after Pope Paul VI wrote HV the entire Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement stating that you can use ABC in good conscience. The Canadian Bishops at the time publicly went against the teachings of the Pope. As a result we have a situation where the large majority of Catholic couples are using ABC. If the Vatican and the Bishops were serious about correcting this problem, then it should be required material for every married couple who has to go to marriage preparation to be taught about NFP at a minimum and reminded about the authentic teachings are.

 

[robertmidwest]

Shortly after Pope Paul VI wrote HV the entire Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement stating that you can use ABC in good conscience. The Canadian Bishops at the time publicly went against the teachings of the Pope. As a result we have a situation where the large majority of Catholic couples are using ABC.

You are giving the Candian bishops way to much credit. The majority of Catholics would be still be using ABC regardless of what they wrote.

 

[Vico]

As a married husband who also has studied the after effects of HV in my country of Canada, I am glad to hear that this is being asked. Shortly after Pope Paul VI wrote HV the entire Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement stating that you can use ABC in good conscience. The Canadian Bishops at the time publicly went against the teachings of the Pope. As a result we have a situation where the large majority of Catholic couples are using ABC. If the Vatican and the Bishops were serious about correcting this problem, then it should be required material for every married couple who has to go to marriage preparation to be taught about NFP at a minimum and reminded about the authentic teachings are.

In 2008 CCCB fully supported HV in Liberating Potential.

“We encourage Catholics to deepen their understanding of the original text of this encyclical (www.vatican.va) in order to meditate on and to integrate in their life this important teaching.” ,

“If in conscience they deem that they should delay a birth for serious reasons because of physical, economic or psychological conditions, natural planning methods will allow them to manage their fertility, while respecting “the indivisible link between loving union and the procreative potential of intercourse in the context of married love.”13”

PDF:

ccbi-utoronto.ca/documents/bioethic_matters/CCCB_Liberating%20Potential_PastoralMessage_HV40thAnniv.pdf