NFP and Contraception once again

[jlc2k2]

I am talking about a married couple postponing or ceasing procreation after having as many children as they can care for. I am not talking about use of contraception outside of marriage.

Perhaps an example will clarify? My husband and I agree that right now is not the time to expand our family. We still have sex regularly but abstain when we are fertile. It requires self control and sacrifice but no one said marriage, parenthood, or life was easy.

 

[jlc2k2]

I think viewing sex only as a tool for making babies can also be harmful. Sex is also an important part of bonding between a husband and wife. When they don’t have the ability to care for more children, why should they suspend physical intimacy? To some degree, this seems like objectification of the married couple, reducing their sex life only to its usefulness for procreation, and ignoring their need for intimacy with each other.

You seem to be confusing long term abstinence with periodic abstinence. Most couples can have sex the majority of the month and not conceive. And if you think a few days each month is difficult, try pelvic rest during a high risk pregnancy or even the 6 week postpartum time when most doctors don’t recommend sex.

 

[Thinking10]

Perhaps an example will clarify? My husband and I agree that right now is not the time to expand our family. We still have sex regularly but abstain when we are fertile. It requires self control and sacrifice but no one said marriage, parenthood, or life was easy.

The view that sex is only for procreation sounds like objectification. It sounds like couples are viewed only for their usefulness to produce something and emotional needs are ignored.

 

[Vico]

I think viewing sex only as a tool for making babies can also be harmful. Sex is also an important part of bonding between a husband and wife. When they don’t have the ability to care for more children, why should they suspend physical intimacy? To some degree, this seems like objectification of the married couple, reducing their sex life only to its usefulness for procreation, and ignoring their need for intimacy with each other.

Pope Pius XII explained it. From Address to Midwives: The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
~

 

[jlc2k2]

The view that sex is only for procreation sounds like objectification. It sounds like couples are viewed only for their usefulness to produce something and emotional needs are ignored.

Are you wilfully misreading the post? I just said that we have sex when we are actively AVOIDING procreation. We do so without using artificial birth control.

So to recap. We have sex several times a month. We are not currently trying to procreate so we don’t have sex when we are fertile. We do it because we love each other. What about that is objectifying?

ETA: Sex is not just for procreation and I have never seen an official Church document that stated that.

 

[Thinking10]

Are you wilfully misreading the post? I just said that we have sex when we are actively AVOIDING procreation. We do so without using artificial birth control.

So to recap. We have sex several times a month. We are not currently trying to procreate so we don’t have sex when we are fertile. We do it because we love each other. What about that is objectifying?

No, I am not saying that to you specifically, but to the idea that sex is only for procreation in general.

 

[Thinking10]

I will post a more thorough explanation of why I view it as objectification tomorrow.

 

[underacloud]

No, I am not saying that to you specifically, but to the idea that sex is only for procreation in general.

The Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation.

I will post a more thorough explanation of why I view it as objectification tomorrow.

Don’t bother, because as addressed it is not a teaching of the Church anyway.

 

[jlc2k2]

No, I am not saying that to you specifically, but to the idea that sex is only for procreation in general.

Where are you getting that from though? Simply because the Church is against artificial birth control?

 

[Abu]

Thinking10 #33
Who is harmed by permitting spouses to cease procreation at a certain point, and focus on their relationships with each other and their children?

The key to abolishing harm is precisely to act responsibly which means simply abstaining during the fertile periods.

If sex without procreation is helpful to maintaining a healthy relationship between the husband and wife, why should they abstain?
#37
When they don’t have the ability to care for more children, why should they suspend physical intimacy?

Why the obfuscation?

Obviously there is no “suspension of physical intimacy” except intercourse itself temporarily for short periods – why the despising of any sort of self-control which is a recognized virtue in all aspects of life?

#42
The view that sex is only for procreation sounds like objectification. It sounds like couples are viewed only for their usefulness to produce something and emotional needs are ignored.

Completely false. We are here helping you to see reality and can vouch for the fact that “emotional needs” are met and self-control in life is not only a virtue but a necessity. Get real.

 

[Lerin]

Children need attention and care from their parents, something they get less of as the number of children increases.

You brought me out of lurkdom for that eyeroll.

I suggest you get to know more large, faithful, Catholic families before you make such an offensive generalization.

This is not deeply theological, but see #3 and #4 here: generationcedar.com/main/2014/06/7-misconceptions-about-moms-of-large-families.html

 

[relstudent]

1. Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?

By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.

1. What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?

---

As a married man who also practices NFP, let me try to help explain its usefulness and suggest why the Catholic Church is right in its teaching.

The first point is to understand what sex actually is. The common misunderstanding is to view sex as a human need. If this is the case, then it is morally disordered to have a strong stand against sex before marriage or to a support a celibate priesthood. The support of both stances would be tantamount to starvation or oxygen deprivation and would amount to torture. Therefore, all Catholics and Christians who hold to these traditional values must understand that sex is a Good of marriage, indeed a necessity of marriage, but it is not in-and-of itself a human need.

The next point is to understand what sex is. The common definition of sex is the stimulation of sexual organs in order to achieve orgasm. Therefore most of the secular media considers oral and anal stimulation to be a form of sex as well as lesbian and gay simulation to be sex. The Catholic Church defines sex as the unative act of a man and a woman whereby the man ejaculates uninhibitedly into the woman vagina. Therefore, it does not consider the aforementioned stimulation to be sex at all.

Thirdly we must consider the aim of the sexual act. Society considers sex to be a recreational activity that may be directed toward the formation of a new life. Therefore contraception fulfills the primary purpose of sex which is to receive pleasure from another person. In fact, it brings sex it its perfection because it eliminates the “risk” of life being created against the will of the acting couple. Keeping in mind the different definition that the CC has for sex, it defines the primary aim of sex to be the procreation of children. This is simply a function of Biology. The orgasm accompanies the ejaculation and not the other way around, and the ejaculation is the imparting of genetic material to a source outside of oneself. Therefore the purpose of the ejaculation is to move genetic material from one place to another. It must be admitted that act is intrinsically procreative because it automatically provides 50% of the material needed to procreate is present in every act. The orgasm is there and is beneficial so-as-to form the bond needed to raise children.

Keeping these points in mind we can understand why the Catholic Church shuns contraception. Condoms subvert the intrinsic purpose of sex in that it does not allow genetic material to reach travel outside of itself or to reach the fulfillment of the sex act itself. Gay and Lesbians are not allowed to marry because they cannot procreate in the natural manner, and this is the reason why orgasm through non-genital stimulation is not allowed. Birth-control pills and other forms that stop ovulation subvert the entire purpose of the female sexual organs and transform the vagina into an sterile bodily orifice equivalent to any other sterile opening.

In summary, if a married couple must have sex to maintain a healthy bond in their relationship, then they need marriage counseling immediately. Either pregnancy, age, or some other factor will limit the couples sexual act for months, and maybe years at a time. Sex is not a need for couples, and it is dangerous when it is perceived as such. Of course coupes can use natural cycles for their purpose (long periods of natural infertility help prevent perpetual pregnancy) but they should be open to receiving children at any time. The act itself - inthat it allows at least 50% of the genetic material to be present and does not subvert the natural processes of the female sexual organs- is still valid and beneficial. You might not like the teaching, and the explanations against birth control can be criticized from those holding a different ontology that the Catholic Church, but it makes sense from the Catholic perspective.

 

[sailor28]

Thinking10,

You are asking some very good questions. Perhaps you did not come back to reply more because you got weary. I wanted to say that “yes” couples who use contraception have unitive sex.

I did not find it offensive when you mentioned that the more children you have (in some cases, my emphasis added) the less parents are able to give to their kids. I grew up with a mom with a severe mental illness. My parents had more kids than they were able to care for. There are consequences to that. Kids are resilient but some chronic problems can significantly impact them for the worse and can even damage their relationship with God. Those early formative years are so important.

The type of questions you asked and the lack of adequate answers is what led me to believe the church is not infallible on this particular teaching. The legalism with this teaching damages couples and marriages. Those couples are silent witnesses. They can not speak up publicly. Well, they can but if you observe the conversations here you will understand why they don’t. Here are stories of women who spoke up:

womenintheology.org/category/women-speak-about-natural-family-planning/

I pray a ton of wisdom for you as you seek and use your critical thinking skills.

 

[Abu]

sailor28 #52
I wanted to say that “yes” couples who use contraception have unitive sex
The type of questions you asked and the lack of adequate answers is what led me to believe the church is not infallible on this particular teaching. The legalism with this teaching damages couples and marriages. Those couples are silent witnesses.

False. A self-proclaimed “Catholic” who disregards Christ who gave us His Church and feels that Christ can be discarded and places their own feelings above the teaching of Christ through His Church. “Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19).

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.
“The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

Even in the O.T. it is explained that Onan was killed by God for contraception.
From Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
CONTRACEPTION. Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception. It is the performance of the marriage act with the positive frustration of conception. Also called conjugal onanism, from the sin of Onan, referred to in the Bible (Genesis 38:8-10).

rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on *Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930)].

“Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).”

Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin and specifically teaches what St Augustine teaches – that God killed Onan for contraception. That is the grave sin.

 

[Thorns]

Why are physical barriers like condoms evil? How do condoms nullify the unitive aspect of sex?

 

[jilly4ski]

Why are physical barriers like condoms evil? How do condoms nullify the unitive aspect of sex?

Is it really that difficult to see why a condom disrupts the unitive side of the marital act as well as the procreative side. (Which I noticed no one addressed my points about biology and how God ordered the marital act). So condoms disrupt the unitive purpose of the marital act for a couple of reasons. Objectively, it prevents the sexual organs from actually touching. and prevents actual sex from occurring (it is just penetration without the exchange of fluids which makes sex, sex). Subjectively, what is the difference from using a condom and using a vibrator for a woman? What is the difference between using a condom and masturbating for man? In essence, that is what a condom does, it reduces the marital act to activities that could be accomplished alone. That will indeed disrupt the unitive purpose of sex. The couple is not actually becoming “one flesh.”

 

[Abu]

Thorns #64
Why are physical barriers like condoms evil? How do condoms nullify the unitive aspect of sex?

Real Catholics assent to the Church’s teaching on the evils of contraception and learn the reasons.

8. Married Love and Contraception (Msgr Cormac P Burke)
Thu, 07/21/2011
cormacburke.or.ke/node/1005

“The contraceptive argument is evidently built on an essential thesis: that the procreative and the unitive aspects of the marital act are separable, that is, that the procreative aspect can be nullified without in any way vitiating the conjugal act or making it less a unique expression of marital love and union. This thesis is of course explicitly rejected by the Church. The main reason why contraception is unacceptable to a Christian conscience is, as Pope Paul VI put it in Humanae vitae, the “inseparable connection, established by God… between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (HV 12).

“……if one deliberately destroys the power of the conjugal act to give life, one necessarily destroys its power to signify love: the love and union proper to marriage.

“The conjugal act may or may not be accompanied by pleasure; but the meaning of the act does not consist in its pleasure. The pleasure provided by marital intercourse may be intense, but it is transient. The significance of marital intercourse is also intense, and it is not transient; it lasts. Why should the marital act be more significant than any other expression of affection between the spouses? Why should it be a more intense expression of love and union? Surely because of what happens in that marital encounter, which is not just a touch, not a mere sensation, however intense, but a communication, an offer and acceptance, an exchange of something that uniquely represents the gift of oneself and the union of two selves.

‘Therefore, what makes marital intercourse express a unique relationship and union is not the sharing of a sensation but the sharing of a power: of an extraordinary life-related, creative, physical, sexual power. In a truly conjugal relationship, each spouse says to the other: “I accept you as somebody like no one else in my life. You will be unique to me and I to you. You and you alone will be my husband; you alone will be my wife. And the proof of your uniqueness to me is the fact that with you - and with you alone - am I prepared to share this God-given, life-oriented power”.’

‘Now if one deliberately nullifies the life-orientation of the conjugal act, one destroys its essential power to signify union. Contraception in fact turns the marital act into self-deception or into a lie: “I love you so much that with you, and with you alone, I am ready to share this most unique power…” But - what unique power? In contraceptive sex, no unique power is being shared, except a power to produce pleasure. But then the uniqueness of the marital act is reduced to pleasure. Its significance is gone.

‘Contraceptive intercourse is an exercise in meaninglessness. It could perhaps be compared to going through the actions of singing without letting any sound of music pass one’s lips.

‘Contraception is in fact not just an action without meaning; it is an action that contradicts the essential meaning which true conjugal intercourse should have as signifying total and unconditional self-donation [79]. Instead of accepting each other totally, contraceptive spouses reject each other in part, because fertility is part of each one of them. They reject part of their mutual love - its power to be fruitful.’
[Msgr Burke is a former Judge of the Roman Rota, the High Court of the Church. During his 13 years in Rome, he also taught Anthropology at the “Studium Rotale”, as well as Canon Law at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. In 1995 he was Visiting Professor of the Willie Onclin Chair at the Catholic University of Louvain. The National Federation of Catholic Physicians of the United States accorded him the 1994 Linacre Award for his writings in the field of marriage and sexual ethics].

 

[kaos713]

How’s everyone feel about permitting condom use in places such as Africa to control the spread of HIV/AIDS?

 

[Vico]

How’s everyone feel about permitting condom use in places such as Africa to control the spread of HIV/AIDS?

Condoms are not to be used by those that are married. If someone is sinning* and consistently and correctly* uses a latex condom, then it is possible to effectively prevent the sexual transmission of HIV and reduce risk of other pathogens.

CDC states:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, reduce the risk of transmission of STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis.

Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infections can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid only when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected. Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV infection and HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer).

 

[Abu]

kaos713 #576
How’s everyone feel about permitting condom use in places such as Africa to control the spread of HIV/AIDS?

“Feelings” have nothing to do with the correct understanding and assent to moral actions which require the correct use of reason, and the faith to do what is right and reject what is wrong.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN): **
“In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.

“With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope St John Paul II teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf.Rom.3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.’ (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).”