Humane Vitae, human nutrition, and sugar-free gum

[Hokomai]

I have been trying to understand (as I have now for several decades) the Church teaching on contraception. I have read the teaching itself, in encyclicals and the CCC, and several books and websites, as well as following what is said on CAF about it since 2004. Obviously, as an unbeliever, I do not accept the teaching merely because it is taught. I have noted that this is the position adopted by some Catholics who,like me, cannot see the logic of it. To illustrate the illogical as I perceive it, I have done a little thought experiment comparing what an encyclical might have said about the use of sugar-free gum (with no nutritive value) with what is actually said about contraception. I am doing this in the hope that it will help me understand more about the underlying logic which seems so apparent to some believers. Humane Vitae is a normal type face; my gum encyclical is in the other color:

Observing the Natural Law
11. …The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

…each and every act of eating must retain its intrinsic relationship to the nurture of human life.

Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

…is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the enjoyment of eating significance and the nutritive significance which are both inherent to the act of eating.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the act of eating, while giving enjoyment to the eater, also nurtures life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the enjoyment and the nutritive, is preserved, the use of eating fully retains its sense of enjoyment and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of staying alive to which man is called.

Faithfulness to God’s Design
13. …an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

…an act of eating which impairs the capacity to nurture life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of eating, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

… But to experience the gift of eating while respecting the laws of nutrition is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically digestive faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the maintenance of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. …Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Unlawful Eating Methods

14. …Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after eating, is specifically intended to prevent nutrition—whether as an end or as a means. The faithful, and all men of good will, may not, therefore, chew sugar-free gum.

 

[Mintaka]

If you could create other living souls and bodies by eating, and if the process of eating required not only your own soul and body but another living body and soul to participate with you, and if therefore eating was a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, for three people (or more, if multiple kids ensue), then your comparison would be equal and valid.

However, there are certainly forbidden food practices. Cannibalism, for instance. You can’t feed yourself at the expense of another living human being, even though eating is not wrong.

Sugar-free gum counts as a “vanity” or a harmless neutral substance, depending on how it is used.

 

[Aggies08]

Does chewing gum mirror the love which is God?

I’d meditate on the Trinity- use Sheed’s Theology for Beginners,- and how the marital act is supposed to mirror this.

 

[LilyM]

If you could create other living souls and bodies by eating, and if the process of eating required not only your own soul and body but another living body and soul to participate with you, and if therefore eating was a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, for three people (or more, if multiple kids ensue), then your comparison would be equal and valid.

However, there are certainly forbidden food practices. Cannibalism, for instance. You can’t feed yourself at the expense of another living human being, even though eating is not wrong.

Sugar-free gum counts as a “vanity” or a harmless neutral substance, depending on how it is used.

Exactly.

Besides which - IF the Church had ever come out and said, as per the OP’s analogy, that eating fulfills two purposes, the pleasurable and the nutritive, which two purposes are not separated without grave risk of sin, then indeed the same conclusions could be drawn about sugra free gum (although is gum food? perhaps a better substitute might be something like sugar free softdrinks) as about contraception.

But the fact is that the Church has never even hinted at such a thing in regards the purposes of eating, let alone consistently taught it about eating. On the contrary, many saints have deliberately denied themselves pleasure in their food. For example by eating bitter herbs a la St Catherine of Siena, or advising people to deliberately not use any seasoning at all on their food, so as to lessen their attachment to the pleasures of food. So if Church attitudes on food and eating are consistent in any direction, it is that one should in fact try not to obsess so much in getting pleasure out of eating. And therefore that the functions of eating are separable.

As stated in the quoted post - it may be the fact that multiple persons are involved, as is the creation of new life.

 

[lily20]

This lady says it all in terms of contraception:

janetesmith.com/

 

[Lochias]

I have been trying to understand (as I have now for several decades) the Church teaching on contraception. I have read the teaching itself, in encyclicals and the CCC, and several books and websites, as well as following what is said on CAF about it since 2004. Obviously, as an unbeliever, I do not accept the teaching merely because it is taught. I have noted that this is the position adopted by some Catholics who,like me, cannot see the logic of it.

What leads you to believe that the Church’s teaching is what is flawed, rather than your (in)ability to understand why it is so?

 

[sw85]

What in the world possesses you to think that, between (a) strangers on the Internet with no formal background in theology or (b) books written by professional philosophers and theologians, the right source to consult for answers to incredibly complicated theological questions was the former?

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

What leads you to believe that the Church’s teaching is what is flawed, rather than your (in)ability to understand why it is so?

I think the OP’s question is an effort to gain understanding. Questioning is how we learn the “why”.

 

[Lochias]

I think the OP’s question is an effort to gain understanding. Questioning is how we learn the “why”.

I don’t agree with your assessment. I notice that the OP never said he sat down and spoke with a priest at length…that would be the next step, not coming to CAF and asking folks with (generally speaking) a lack of theology training to better answer the question.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Just because gum has been artifically sweetened doesn’t mean that there isn’t still some nutrition present that gets ingested while chewing. I agree that artifically-sweetened gum probably isn’t the healthiest thing out there, but then again, neither is a good portion of the processed foods that we eat in today’s society. In my opinion, chewing any sort of flavored gum is not divorcing the act of eating from its associated pleasure simply because we are still consuming an edible food ingredient that is making the gum taste good.

Now, it’s possible that somebody could chew taste-free gum that would have no edible ingredients at all but this would be pretty boring and I doubt that such an activity would be considered pleasurable in the way that eating is pleasurable. I mean, if somebody were to actually enjoy eating tasteless gum they would have to be enjoying the repetitive act of exercising their jaw muscles (in the same way that somebody would enjoy doing push-ups or crunches) and not the culinary enjoyment that comes from eating food. I just don’t see how this would be divorcing the act of eating from the pleasure derived from eating.

A better comparison would be to compare contraception to bulimia (a disorder where a person eats food for pleasure and then purges afterwards). I agree that bulimia would be disordered in a similar way that contraception is disordered.

 

[St_Francis]

Hokomai,
Decades before the internet, When I was 13 or so, I had a theory that the Theory of Relativity, if extended, would lead to magic. So I looked for the Theory; it took a long time for me to find, but when I found it, I couldn’t read it! It was all written in Mathematics!

With some things, like the Theory of Relativity, you need certain background knowlwdge to understand it.

It’s the same way with contraception. you sort of understand the logic. Tye problem with your analogy is that it is too small to rise to the level of even venial sin.

But suppose someone was running a nursing home and had a patient who was immobilized and fed him non-nutritious things like unsweetened gum, sawdust, grass. Could one say that rises to the level of feeding him? Might someone call this a mere parody of feeding him?

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

Just because gum has been artifically sweetened doesn’t mean that there isn’t still some nutrition present that gets ingested while chewing. I agree that artifically-sweetened gum probably isn’t the healthiest thing out there, but then again, neither is a good portion of the processed foods that we eat in today’s society. In my opinion, chewing any sort of flavored gum is not divorcing the act of eating from its associated pleasure simply because we are still consuming an edible food ingredient that is making the gum taste good.

Now, it’s possible that somebody could chew taste-free gum that would have no edible ingredients at all but this would be pretty boring and I doubt that such an activity would be considered pleasurable in the way that eating is pleasurable. I mean, if somebody were to actually enjoy eating tasteless gum they would have to be enjoying the repetitive act of exercising their jaw muscles (in the same way that somebody would enjoy doing push-ups or crunches) and not the culinary enjoyment that comes from eating food. I just don’t see how this would be divorcing the act of eating from the pleasure derived from eating.

A better comparison would be to compare contraception to bulimia (a disorder where a person eats food for pleasure and then purges afterwards). I agree that bulimia would be disordered in a similar way that contraception is disordered.

Clearly the OP chose artifically sweetened gum with the intent that we assume, for purposes of discussion, that it’s totally devoid of nutritional value, thus divorcing the pleasure of eating from its life-sustaining function.

 

[Hokomai]

ExCatholicGuy:

Clearly the OP chose artifically sweetened gum with the intent that we assume, for purposes of discussion, that it’s totally devoid of nutritional value, thus divorcing the pleasure of eating from its life-sustaining function.

Indeed I did!

	Mintaka

If you could create other living souls and bodies by eating, and if the process of eating required not only your own soul and body but another living body and soul to participate with you, and if therefore eating was a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, for three people (or more, if multiple kids ensue), then your comparison would be equal and valid.

Eating is a matter of life and death for everyone

Aggies08

Does chewing gum mirror the love which is God?

No, but is this the reason the Church opposes contraception?

LilyM

IF the Church had ever come out and said, as per the OP’s analogy, that eating fulfills two purposes, the pleasurable and the nutritive, which two purposes are not separated without grave risk of sin, then indeed the same conclusions could be drawn about sugra free gum (although is gum food? perhaps a better substitute might be something like sugar free softdrinks) as about contraception.

But the fact is that the Church has never even hinted at such a thing in regards the purposes of eating, let alone consistently taught it about eating.

This is my point: why? why the difference? Why does the church not have such a teaching?

On the contrary, many saints have deliberately denied themselves pleasure in their food. For example by eating bitter herbs a la St Catherine of Siena, or advising people to deliberately not use any seasoning at all on their food, so as to lessen their attachment to the pleasures of food. So if Church attitudes on food and eating are consistent in any direction, it is that one should in fact try not to obsess so much in getting pleasure out of eating. And therefore that the functions of eating are separable.

I feel an analogy with celibacy and eating bitter herbs coming on. Surely by this logic, celibacy would lead to an argument that sexual pleasure and procreation could be separated?
.
Lochias :

What leads you to believe that the Church’s teaching is what is flawed, rather than your (in)ability to understand why it is so?

.

I do not believe this. I am trying to understand Church teaching, and honestly describing my present conclusions, which I am always willing to change.

sw85:

What in the world possesses you to think that, between (a) strangers on the Internet with no formal background in theology or (b) books written by professional philosophers and theologians, the right source to consult for answers to incredibly complicated theological questions was the former?

The one does not preclude the other.

 

[Hokomai]

Midnight sun 12:

. I mean, if somebody were to actually enjoy eating tasteless gum they would have to be enjoying the repetitive act of exercising their jaw muscles (in the same way that somebody would enjoy doing push-ups or crunches) and not the culinary enjoyment that comes from eating food. I just don’t see how this would be divorcing the act of eating from the pleasure derived from eating.

Just as I do not see that a couple post child-bearing years using a condom to prevent infection divorces sex from procreation, or a couple with several children seeking to delay another divorces sex from procreation.

St Francis:

The problem with your analogy is that it is too small to rise to the level of even venial sin.

Why, exactly, is one small and the other large? Why the relatively big interest in things to do with sex, and the small interest in things to do with other life-sustaining pleasures?

 

[MidnightSun12]

Clearly the OP chose artifically sweetened gum with the intent that we assume, for purposes of discussion, that it’s totally devoid of nutritional value, thus divorcing the pleasure of eating from its life-sustaining function.

I think you would have to provide a real-life example of something that tastes good but has absolutely no nutritional content for the body. Even diet sodas, which are artificially sweetened and claim to have zero calories contain amino acids such as aspartame which can be metabolized by most people’s bodies (although it’s not a significant source of nutrition, there certainly are organic compounds present that the body can use). It would be the same situation with artifically sweetened gum (the sweetening agent inherently would provide at least some nutrition to the body). I just don’t see how we are completely divorcing the act of culinary enjoyment from the life-sustaining effects of eating in these cases.

I know this seems like nitpicking, but we are, afterall, getting into the finer points of morality here.

Hokomai:

Just as I do not see that a couple post child-bearing years using a condom to prevent infection divorces sex from procreation, or a couple with several children seeking to delay another divorces sex from procreation.

Of course, one should keep in mind that NFP is a completely valid means to space children if the married couple have discerned a serious or grave reason for doing so.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis: Why, exactly, is one small and the other large? Why the relatively big interest in things to do with sex, and the small interest in things to do with other life-sustaining pleasures?

It is not sex which is the interest, but life and death issues. Sexual activity generates life, killing extinguishes life.

Sustaining life is important, but nowhere near as important as generating and extinguishing that life.

What did you think about the rest of what I said? Did it seem to go along with your thinking or was it totally off-base?

 

[Corki]

St Francis: Why, exactly, is one small and the other large? Why the relatively big interest in things to do with sex, and the small interest in things to do with other life-sustaining pleasures?

Because sex is part of marriage and marriage is a Sacrament. All of the Church’s teaching on sex is within the context of marriage. Sacraments involve the physical AND the spiritual. Eating is simply a physical act. To divide the purposes of the marital act is to rupture the Sacrament. To divide the purposes of eating breaks nothing.

 

[Lochias]

Because sex is part of marriage and marriage is a Sacrament. All of the Church’s teaching on sex is within the context of marriage. Sacraments involve the physical AND the spiritual. Eating is simply a physical act. To divide the purposes of the marital act is to rupture the Sacrament. To divide the purposes of eating breaks nothing.

This.

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai,
Decades before the internet, When I was 13 or so, I had a theory that the Theory of Relativity, if extended, would lead to magic. So I looked for the Theory; it took a long time for me to find, but when I found it, I couldn’t read it! It was all written in Mathematics!

With some things, like the Theory of Relativity, you need certain background knowledge to understand it.

It’s the same way with contraception. you sort of understand the logic. Tye problem with your analogy is that it is too small to rise to the level of even venial sin.

But suppose someone was running a nursing home and had a patient who was immobilized and fed him non-nutritious things like unsweetened gum, sawdust, grass. Could one say that rises to the level of feeding him? Might someone call this a mere parody of feeding him?

Thanks for your invitation for a further response, St Francis. I think if you are going to tell people that spacing their family, or protecting against infection by using condoms is ‘grave matter’, you should be able to explain it in a straightforward way. It would be one thing if the church just said ‘it’s a mystery, we have always thought this, we don’t have an explanation, but it is part of faith’. But the Church does not say this. Through philosophy (the end does not justify the means, ‘natural law’) it constructs an elaborate ‘explanation’ which as far as I am aware has never convinced anyone outside Christianity and almost no one outside the Church. Your relativity response exposes this approach. You are telling me that a simple analogy between the pleasure and purpose of eating, and the pleasure and purpose of sex is invalid, but for reasons I could only fathom if I knew as much about theology as scientists do about relativity. if there is a God, and he did want the church to explain this teaching, I am sure he would want explanations simple folk could understand.

 

[jmcrae]

No, but is this the reason the Church opposes contraception?

Yes - Marriage is a Sacrament because it is an image of God’s love for the Church. God and the Church produce new souls for Heaven, just as married couples produce new human beings to populate the Church on earth.