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

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I have not seen anything specifically directed at post-menopausal couples.

I think this is because the Church considers all couples equal. It does not matter if you are twenty and extra fertile, thirty and have a zero sperm count, forty and have had a hysterectomy, fifty and past menopause, or somewhere in between and moderately fertile, - the Church applies the same teaching to everyone.

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Encyclical Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI, December 31, 1930
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

I like this encyclical because Margaret Sanger (of Planned Parenthood fame) hated it, seeing it as an obstacle to the propagation of birth control and eugenics in Catholic communities.

 

[tafan]

What’s there not to understand??!! Its not rocket science. Just read Humanae Vitae and its spelled out in there

That would be the attitude that is obviously not working. Exactly what I have been talking about on this thread. Just telling people who don’t understand that they are just not smart enough (eg “its not rocket science”) isn’t going to get people to start following church teaching.

 

[robertmidwest]

+JMJ+

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Encyclical Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI, December 31, 1930
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

I had a guy in my prayer group, who was in his late 60’s, tell us that it was sinful for him engage in sex with his wife because she was post menopause.

 

[tafan]

If the Synod is going to have speakers who casts doubt on the Church’s teaching on contraception, perhaps it should also invite Mary Eberstadt to speak—author of “Adam and Eve After the Pill”—which delineates the social disasters following upon the acceptance of contraception.

This is a unfair implication about the couple in question. I read the article posted and no where do they cast doubt on the Church’s teaching on contraception. Look at their concluding remark “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”.

Completely unjust way of portraying the couple.
Do you people really doubt any of the following?

1. 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
2. generally they are not questioned by their confessors
3. The great majority of (catholic) couples do not reject the use of contraceptive methods. In general, they do not consider them a moral problem

You all have your heads stuck in the sand. There is great confusion on this issue in the Church today. That is not saying the Church’s position is wrong, it is saying that people do not understand the Church’s position.

 

[manualman]

Well, first, unitive should be what the couple decides.

Secondly, what is procreative, or “ordered towards procreation”? My wife is post-menopausal, so there is no procreating going on at all. I think the “ordered towards procreation” and finishing inside the woman comes from a view that semen contains little baby humans, which has been proven, long ago, to not be true.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

What the couple decides? How about it is what it is? Intentionally sterilizing sex changes what it IS. Procreative and unitive are not stand-alone characteristics any more than different facets of a diamond are. Intentionally defacing one facet also damages the brilliance of the other facets, even if that is not intended or even initially noticed.

 

[PaulinVA]

What the couple decides? How about it is what it is? Intentionally sterilizing sex changes what it IS. Procreative and unitive are not stand-alone characteristics any more than different facets of a diamond are. Intentionally defacing one facet also damages the brilliance of the other facets, even if that is not intended or even initially noticed.

I’m afraid you are answering something I did not say. In terms of unitive, I was referring to what a couple does that others could consider demeaning to one or the other partner, or “I would never do that”. Well, THEY would. My point is the couple decides if an act or action or whatever is unitive within the context of a session of marital relations.

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

 

[JimG]

This is a unfair implication about the couple in question. I read the article posted and no where do they cast doubt on the Church’s teaching on contraception. Look at their concluding remark “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”.

Completely unjust way of portraying the couple.
Do you people really doubt any of the following?

1. 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
2. generally they are not questioned by their confessors
3. The great majority of (catholic) couples do not reject the use of contraceptive methods. In general, they do not consider them a moral problem

You all have your heads stuck in the sand. There is great confusion on this issue in the Church today. That is not saying the Church’s position is wrong, it is saying that people do not understand the Church’s position.

Yes I agree that was an unfair implication about the speakers; my comments should not have implicated them at all. I don’t doubt their orthodoxy.

I think the problem is that there has been a lot of bad catechesis about such issues, so yes, people are confused because they have not been properly taught for decades.

The remarkable thing, and the reason I mention Mary Eberstadt’s book, is that the neglect of proper teaching on contraception has led to a great number of evils, up to and including same sex marriage. If one wishes to get away from discussing the theology of contraception and just look at the results–abortion, divorce, fatherless children, families in crisis and poverty, that book is a good place to start.

What we are seeing is the results of bad catechesis which caused bad moral practice which caused bad social results, which is why they are having the synod.

 

[St_Francis]

A lot of priests actually told people that using abc is all right–that’s the source if the confusion. For 21 years Fr Charles Curran was teaching abc is all right at Catholic University. A huge proportion of a generation of priests were against HV and didn’t teach it, and then of course it wasn’t taught in seminaries either.

So there is confusion, because only some members of the hierarchy were obedient. The rest sowed seeds of confusion, along with their rationalizations and justifications, which is why now, people have a hard time even understanding the reasoning behind abc’s immorality.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well, first, unitive should be what the couple decides.

Secondly, what is procreative, or “ordered towards procreation”? My wife is post-menopausal, so there is no procreating going on at all. I think the “ordered towards procreation” and finishing inside the woman comes from a view that semen contains little baby humans, which has been proven, long ago, to not be true.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

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.

 

[Arandur]

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.

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.

SpeakinSilence:

Sex can be procreative and not unitive (i.e. rape, IVF… etc). . Sex can be unitive and not procreative (i.e. masturbation, contraceptive sex… etc).

??? Your statements seem to indicate that unitive = pleasurable. Not so (you gave the example of masturbation as being unitive? Hardly! It’s only practiced by one!). Unitive requires the actual one flesh union of the sexual organs, along with a** total self-giving** of the individuals to each other (total requires it also to be lifelong and include an offering of your fertility).

PaulinVA:

Well, first, unitive should be what the couple decides.

??? So morality is relative?
Is BDSM unitive? Pleasuring yourselves while across the room from each other? Or how about swinging (inviting other people to your bed–the so-called “open marriage”)?
Just what they decide, huh?

PaulinVA:

Secondly, what is procreative, or “ordered towards procreation”? My wife is post-menopausal, so there is no procreating going on at all. I think the “ordered towards procreation” and finishing inside the woman comes from a view that semen contains little baby humans, which has been proven, long ago, to not be true.

As for all this confusion about the “procreative” aspect (though you’d think of all things it would be most obvious that sex is reproductive; it’s a sign of how stupid our culture has made us by trying to separate babies from sex via contraception and abortion)…

Procreative means it must include the possibility of procreation and openness to it. It doesn’t mean you have to try to conceive with every act. Even in NFP, there is a slight chance that something irregular can happen, and an act of intercourse even during an “infertile” period could result in a child being conceived (BTW, ALL artificial methods have failure rates, too, usually higher than NFP). That is why **every individual act **of intercourse must be open to life—so that even if you use NFP, if you conceive, you will not be “mad at God” or in some way refuse the gift of the child that you’ve been given. It’s that latter, negative attitude that constitutes the “contraceptive mentality,” and it is that attitude that would make NFP use improper (because in that case, you’re not open to life).

 

[PaulinVA]

??? So morality is relative?
Is BDSM unitive? Pleasuring yourselves while across the room from each other? Or how about swinging (inviting other people to your bed–the so-called “open marriage”)?
Just what they decide, huh?

As I clarified after this post, several people want to determine the acts that can be performed by putting them through a filter of “Would * I *do that”. My point is that, within the realm of what is permissible, the couple decides.

As for all this confusion about the “procreative” aspect (though you’d think of all things it would be most obvious that sex is reproductive; it’s a sign of how stupid our culture has made us by trying to separate babies from sex via contraception and abortion)…

Procreative means it must include the possibility of procreation and openness to it. It doesn’t mean you have to try to conceive with every act. Even in NFP, there is a slight chance that something irregular can happen, and an act of intercourse even during an “infertile” period could result in a child being conceived (BTW, ALL artificial methods have failure rates, too, usually higher than NFP). That is why every individual act of intercourse must be open to life—so that even if you use NFP, if you conceive, you will not be “mad at God” or in some way refuse the gift of the child that you’ve been given. It’s that latter, negative attitude that constitutes the “contraceptive mentality,” and it is that attitude that would make NFP use improper (because in that case, you’re not open to life).

This is a good explanation of Catholic teaching, but does not at all handle the outlier cases. On day 29 of a thirty day cycle, if infertility was determined to have started a week or more ago, there is zero percent chance of conception. Zero. That is why NFP works.

Additionally, there are people who have licitly become infertile (menopause, surgery, accident, whatever) and they and their partner will never become pregnant. Please explain why it’s so important for them to be “open to life” as you put it. What life are they being open to?

 

[Arandur]

The teaching is really much simpler than all that. So many people are unnecessarily confusing it all, and the culture has certainly trained us to obfuscate and justify whatever we want (particularly in the sexual area) to the extend that we’ve forgotten how simple sex is.

I agree that the language of “procreative” and “unitive” purposes is often confusing, particularly when people don’t take the time to study and consider the whole explanation.

Here’s the matter put (I hope) much more simply and directly:
We should have sex naturally, as God intended*, and within the context of marriage. ** We should not interfere with God’s design for sex** (natural sex or sex “au natural” as Patrick Coffin might put it) with artificial barriers or chemical suppressions. Instead, when we have sex we should be ready and open to participating in God’s creation, leaving it up to Him as to when and how He will give the ultimate good and gift of children, giving Him control and without trying to thwart His purpose.

I’ll admit that it took me a long time to soften my heart to the idea, but once I got it, it really is quite a simple principle. It’s just that our culture has trained us to harden our hearts in this area.

*God’s intent is shown in how the body fits together (male and female genitalia, not male-male, female-female, or other improper uses of genitalia); how the woman’s natural cycle works (and when menopause happens); and the fact that it is only this one-flesh union from which children (who only have one father and mother, and thus why their fathers and mothers should be bonded for life in marriage) can arise. It is also shown through His Revelation in Scripture about chastity, the lifelong indissolubility of marriage, and design for male-female-only intercourse.

Here are the core premises in list form:

1. To use something God has made in a manner that deliberately attempts to disrupt, thwart, or otherwise interfere with its purpose and design is wrong
2. God made sexual intercourse
3. Sexual intercourse is the only manner in which new human life is naturally generated
4. The sexual organs (and human body in general) are designed specifically for this purpose
    Thus, the sexual organs (reproductive organs) of the body are designed for a specific purpose and should be used in accord with that purpose, not deliberately sterilized

Here’s another analogy that might help:
Contraception is like sexual bulimia (and the old feast orgies where you eat gluttonously and then make yourself vomit so that you can eat some more. In bulimia, you eat, but you don’t want to gain the nutrition of what you eat. You are **denying the purpose **of the food, and denying your body of nourishment

In bulimia, one does this out of a disordered desire to be “skinny,” an unhealthy body image or concern for how others see you, or out of fear of being fat. It starves the body and is life-threatening.

In orgy feasting, it is out of gluttony.

It’s easy to see these things as disordered. They try to deny the purpose and effects of food out of disordered desires for preventing its effects on the body or out of wanting more pleasure without the effects. Contraceptive sex is the same. It denies the purpose of sex, attempting to sterilize it to remove the life-giving good of it (like food) out of a disordered desire for more pleasure or no possibility of consequences. It is likewise life-threatening (to the soul) and stems from a form of the sin of Lust (using another for physical pleasure without accepting all of them and the possible consequences of your action).

To further the analogy to explain NFP, NFP is like diet, exercise, and fine dining with portion control. With diet and exercise, you control your body’s weight and health through the healthiest natural means available, working with the body rather than against it. Through fine dining with portion control, you get pleasure from your food while not eating to excess, which could cause detrimental side effects.

One could still use diet and exercise, etc. for the wrong reasons–out of excessive vanity, for instance. One’s body image can still be wrong, to the point where despite reasonable efforts, one gets upset at the outcome–not skinny enough! So too can NFP be used inappropriately, and a baby feared rather than welcomed and accepted.

We can see how different are the approaches to food. Why not sex?

 

[Arandur]

My point is that, within the realm of what is permissible, the couple decides.

Then I guess I’m not sure what you mean.

Additionally, there are people who have licitly become infertile (menopause, surgery, accident, whatever) and they and their partner will never become pregnant. Please explain why it’s so important for them to be “open to life” as you put it. What life are they being open to?

I’m not sure why this is such a problem. Openness to life is just an attitude of receptiveness to a child if you were to have a child–which includes not trying to use artificial means to prevent having a child.

Surgery, an accident, even the early stages of menopause may not be absolute barriers to conception. The point, then, is that when you have relations, if you conceive (even if its unlikely or a doctor has said you shouldn’t be able to–they are often wrong), you should be open to that life, not resentful of it. And you should have been aware and accepting of the fact that any act of intercourse could result in conception.

It’s simply a matter of attitude. Why make it more complex than that?

 

[PaulinVA]

Then I guess I’m not sure what you mean.

Okay, let’s move on.

I’m not sure why this is such a problem. Openness to life is just an attitude of receptiveness to a child if you were to have a child–which includes not trying to use artificial means to prevent having a child.

Surgery, an accident, even the early stages of menopause may not be absolute barriers to conception. The point, then, is that when you have relations, if you conceive (even if its unlikely or a doctor has said you shouldn’t be able to–they are often wrong), you should be open to that life, not resentful of it. And you should have been aware and accepting of the fact that any act of intercourse could result in conception.

It’s simply a matter of attitude. Why make it more complex than that?

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.

 

[Ed_Silvia]

Okay, let’s move on. 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.

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

[J_Peterson]

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Exactly. If God wants someone to get pregnant they will regardless of circumstances or our wishes. Do people really think that contraception can prevent God from creating a new life? No contraception is 100% so there is always a chance to get pregnant. 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?

 

[PaulinVA]

Exactly. If God wants someone to get pregnant they will regardless of circumstances or our wishes. Do people really think that contraception can prevent God from creating a new life? No contraception is 100% so there is always a chance to get pregnant. It is possible to use contraception and be open to life in the same way a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy.

Do you really think that God intervenes in everyday life in that way? Do you really think that He overrides the biology he created and makes women pregnant? I do not dispute that he can, I’m asking if he* does*.

 

[JimG]

The teaching is really much simpler than all that. So many people are unnecessarily confusing it all, and the culture has certainly trained us to obfuscate and justify whatever we want (particularly in the sexual area) to the extend that we’ve forgotten how simple sex is.

I agree that the language of “procreative” and “unitive” purposes is often confusing, particularly when people don’t take the time to study and consider the whole explanation.

Here’s the matter put (I hope) much more simply and directly:
We should have sex naturally, as God intended*, and within the context of marriage. ** We should not interfere with God’s design for sex** (natural sex or sex “au natural” as Patrick Coffin might put it) with artificial barriers or chemical suppressions. Instead, when we have sex we should be ready and open to participating in God’s creation, leaving it up to Him as to when and how He will give the ultimate good and gift of children, giving Him control and without trying to thwart His purpose.

I’ll admit that it took me a long time to soften my heart to the idea, but once I got it, it really is quite a simple principle. It’s just that our culture has trained us to harden our hearts in this area.

Thanks for the straightforward explanation. I would just add for emphasis, that the same consideration as to natural marital sexual relations apply without regard to any couple or any person’s state of fertility. It applies to the fertile, the infertile, the premenopausal, the post-menopausal, equally.

 

[PaulinVA]

Thanks for the straightforward explanation. I would just add for emphasis, that the same consideration as to natural marital sexual relations apply without regard to any couple or any person’s state of fertility. It applies to the fertile, the infertile, the premenopausal, the post-menopausal, equally.

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.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I thought the headline for this was misleading. Something the media loves to do. I thought it was going to be that the couple was in favor of contraception. But if you read the actual article it is that they want it spoken against MORE probably from the pulpit. Which I agree with.