Pregnancy and codoms

[Siena29]

Just curious, is this your first baby?

No, this is baby #5 These ctx are very real, and my ob will check me next week since prodromal labor can lead to a ripened cervix…but not always. I’m far enough along now that the baby will be fine if she decides it’s her time!

I appreciate all the responses! I can’t say I really know for sure what the right answer is, but I am totally down with abstaining right now anyway

I agree that it is not a barrier to life since (further) procreation is impossible, and that medically speaking, it could protect the pregnancy. But I also agree that it removes the unitive purpose by being a physical barrier. So in that way, it would be wrong, as it turns the whole thing into a self fulfilling act (for at least one party LOL) rather than a selfless, unitive act.

 

[Abu]

devoutchristian #99
Abu, from my experience, when Blue Horizon has his mind set on believing that the Church teaches something that it doesn’t, no amount of sources will convince him of the truth.

That’s precisely why it’s wise to write to offer the facts and truth to all readers, so that no one else is needlessly misled. The meaning of a statement or line of thought is never really confined only to the originator and his/her disputant.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Condoms are a barrier to the unitive aspect of sex…

Allegra I noticed that Siena is going along with you on this statement…but I am uncertain.

Condoms are normally considered to thwart the procreative significance of the marital act.
I have not come across anything in Church docs that would suggest it thwarts the unitive as well (not that I have made a specific search).

Are you able to reference Church docs for your statement?

 

[RedSoxWife]

No, that isn’t at all what I was saying. I was simply asking if what my dr. suggested would be permissible in this situation. A moral curiosity. Due to the fact that it in no way violates the life giving role of the marital act at this time, and for the purposes of union within the marriage, I could not see why it would be grave; however, I thought that perhaps I should pose the question so as to give the matter it’s due diligence. My husband and I are faithful to the practice of NFP, so if abstinence is required, so be it. The question was deeper than, “I can’t go w/o sex, what should I do?”

(And, FWIW, in case you didn’t realize this, it is also 6 wks or more of abstinence after the birth for most women, in many cases even longer due to hormonal changes, breastfeeding, etc., so to say “5 wks” is sorely understated.)

Nope. Can’t do it theologically because it’s not just about being open to life, it’s also about separating the act, which you would still be doing.

 

[MJJean]

No, this is baby #5 These ctx are very real, and my ob will check me next week since prodromal labor can lead to a ripened cervix…but not always. I’m far enough along now that the baby will be fine if she decides it’s her time!

I appreciate all the responses! I can’t say I really know for sure what the right answer is, but I am totally down with abstaining right now anyway

I agree that it is not a barrier to life since (further) procreation is impossible, and that medically speaking, it could protect the pregnancy. But I also agree that it removes the unitive purpose by being a physical barrier. So in that way, it would be wrong, as it turns the whole thing into a self fulfilling act (for at least one party LOL) rather than a selfless, unitive act.

Wow, 5! Congratulations! I pray you have a safe and quick delivery!

I still hold with my priests view that the unitive aspect is not physical, but emotional and spiritual. However, not everyone would agree as evidenced by this whole thread, lol. You seem to have come to your own conclusion and are content so I am very happy for you!

 

[Abu]

**Reality
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Oct-30-2003 (EWTN): **
A number of differences between natural family planning and contraception are worth noting.
First, the evil in contraception consists essentially in its deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the love-giving and life-giving meanings of the marital act. There is no such rupture in natural family planning. Moreover, anyone who attempts to morally justify contraception must face up to the logic of that attempt: the person must also accept the moral justification of homosexual activity, genital activity with anyone or anything, in vitro fertilization, and cloning.
Second, while natural family planning nurtures total mutual self-giving between husband and wife, contraception introduces a reservation into their nuptial union. Contraception communicates the message, “I love you…but.” When husband and wife contracept, they lie to each other and to themselves. This may not be what husband and wife intend, but this is what they are objectively doing.
Thirdly, while natural family planning teaches a husband to respect his wife wholly, contraception not only does not teach this, but also permits a man to view his wife as a passive receptacle for his own passions. As noted previously, contraception imposes upon the wife the distorted masculine reduction of feminine sexuality (which includes conception, gestation, giving birth, and breast feeding) to the isolated coital act. Thus, while with natural family planning husband and wife together share the responsibilities of parenthood, with contraception the responsibility is laid on the shoulders of one or the other spouse.
Fourthly, while natural family planning includes growth in virtue, especially chastity, contraception requires no virtue at all. Moreover, while natural family planning deepens the marital bond, contraception weakens marriage’s unitive dimension.
Fifthly, while natural family planning involves a cooperation with the gift of fertility, contraception involves the manipulation and frustration of fertility.
Sixthly, while natural family planning has no adverse side effects but rather only a number of benefits, contraception has a number of serious medical side effects and is often abortifacient. As one moral theologian once put it, so called “pure” or “clean” contraception is a virtual myth.
Finally, while among couples using natural family planning child abuse and divorce are rare, historically the use of contraceptives since the 1960s has increased hand in hand with the rising divorce rate.

 

[Abu]

Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae:
"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. (12)
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.
“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. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.”
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

As Msgr Cormac Burke affirms:
“This contraceptive argument is evidently built on an essential thesis: that the procreative and the unitive aspects of the marital act are separable, i.e., that the procreative aspect can be nullified without this in any way vitiating the conjugal act or making it less a unique expression of true marital love and union.

“This thesis is of course explicitly rejected by the Church” – here Msgr Burke quotes Pope Paul VI above.
*Marriage and Contraception *in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, Ignatius, 1993, p 155].

Ralph McInerny points out that: “It was precisely to this inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act that Cardinal Ratzinger appealed in the Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origins and on the Dignity of Procreation.” (Ibid. in Humanae Vitae and the Principle of Totality, p 329].

 

[Allegra]

Are you able to reference Church docs for your statement?

Are you being sarcastic? You need a church document to tell you that placing a piece of latex between your genitals in order to avoid the natural exchange of seminal and vaginal fluid, (including the biological and psychological benefits of the exchange of those hormones and chemicals such as oxitocin which are scientifically proven to trigger reactions in the brain that aid in forming an intense and trusting emotional bond between lovers) is an impediment to the physical and emotinal unity of the couple?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you being sarcastic? You need a church document to tell you that placing a piece of latex between your genitals in order to avoid the natural exchange of seminal and vaginal fluid, (including the biological and psychological benefits of the exchange of those hormones and chemicals such as oxitocin which are scientifically proven to trigger reactions in the brain that aid in forming an intense and trusting emotional bond between lovers) is an impediment to the physical and emotinal unity of the couple?

Hello Allegra. When I made the following contribution…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allegra: Condoms are a barrier to the unitive aspect of sex…

Allegra I noticed that Siena is going along with you on this statement…but I am uncertain.

Condoms are normally considered to thwart the procreative significance of the marital act.
I have not come across anything in Church docs that would suggest it thwarts the unitive as well (not that I have made a specific search).

Are you able to reference Church docs for your statement?

I was politely indicating both to Siena and yourself that your statement is not actually in accord with Catholic Teaching. We are all entitled to our own opinions however if we are advising/influencing other persons on this Catholic Forum I believe its important we offer the actual teaching of the Church rather than our own interpretation.

I was just going to leave it at that but now that you are highlighting my concern and seem to disagree please excuse me for bringing the following references to your attention:

“Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life…This particular doctrine…is based on the inseparable connection…which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (Humanae Vitae)

“Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage.” (Donum Vitae)

What is it that breaks the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative significance that the Pope refers to? Contraception. He says the connection between them is broken. How is it broken? It is broken because one of them must still exist and the other lost. Which one is lost? Clearly the procreative purpose is more clearly lost than is the unitive. Therefore the unitive purpose is to be considered remaining even in a contraceptive marital act.

The following commentaries may or may not assist readers in exploring this:
Contraceptive Controversy: the Unitive Meaning.
Catholic Herald Article

Allegra I accept your implication that couples who intentionally contracept may well be dealing body-blows to their marriage relationship as a whole. However that does not appear to be what is meant by the Church’s understanding and definition of “the unitive purpose of conjugal sex”.

 

[Meemai]

I am 34 wks pregnant, and have been having bad pre-term labor after being with dh. My doctor says the prostaglandins (sp??) in semen can bring on labor, and that we should use condoms to prevent going into labor early.

Obviously we are not preventing new life, but rather protecting the life we have created, so would you think condoms would be permissible in this situation?

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut

Yes I think it is. Also using a condom might be a sin but so is lieing. And every living human lies, so I don’t get why the church is acting so uptight about it.

I’d rather use a condon and sin then to bring in danger the new life that resides within you. Which also is common sense, everyone that says you can’t use a condom and not using a condom means that the life in your belly may die, is an anspiring murderer.

Use a condom protect the life that resides within you! You shouldn’t even ask this here you should protect your child as number one.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes I think it is. Also using a condom might be a sin but so is lieing. And every living human lies, so I don’t get why the church is acting so uptight about it.

I’d rather use a condon and sin then to bring in danger the new life that resides within you. Which also is common sense, everyone that says you can’t use a condom and not using a condom means that the life in your belly may die, is an anspiring murderer.

Use a condom protect the life that resides within you! You shouldn’t even ask this here you should protect your child as number one.

Hello Meemai. A thought provoking contribution thankyou. Yes I think we all will agree with you that new life needs to be protected.The question for me is what is the best way to do that. If we had only one choice then as you say a condom would seem to be that choice.

Fortunately there are other solutions - like not having sex. So the question is not really about murder (and if it were its really about premature birth which I believe has a very high rate of survival with modern hospitals now) but about the best solution. The issue then seems to be about having no sex for a few weeks or using a condom.

It seems the only down side of the first choice is that it is a small trial for some people.
The down side of the second choice is that many in conscience feel it disobeys Church Teaching. Your comment about lying suggests you accept this is the Church’s teaching in this case but it is OK to disobey it because nobody is perfect and everybody lies/disobeys…

Yes everybody lies…but then the majority of people don’t have a deep relationship with God either. I want a deep relationship with Jesus that is why I do my best not to lie or disobey.

Many people only lie out of weakness and fear of consequences. But to lie out of unforced intent because we don’t care about disobeying…that means we start to stop loving the person we disobey. When we intentionally disobey the Church’s Teaching then we are dangering our relationship with the Church and the person (Jesus/God) who gave the Church its values.

When we lie simply out of weakness it does the same thing but is much smaller and more easily forgiven and understood. I think God expects us to try better next time - especially if there are alternatives that do not involve disobedience and which are actually not that hard to do.

Meemai I am curious why you think not having sex for a few weeks is worse than using condoms though?

 

[Meemai]

Hello Meemai. A thought provoking contribution thankyou. Yes I think we all will agree with you that new life needs to be protected.The question for me is what is the best way to do that. If we had only one choice then as you say a condom would seem to be that choice.

Fortunately there are other solutions - like not having sex. So the question is not really about murder (and if it were its really about premature birth which I believe has a very high rate of survival with modern hospitals now) but about the best solution. The issue then seems to be about having no sex for a few weeks or using a condom.

It seems the only down side of the first choice is that it is a small trial for some people.
The down side of the second choice is that many in conscience feel it disobeys Church Teaching. Your comment about lying suggests you accept this is the Church’s teaching in this case but it is OK to disobey it because nobody is perfect and everybody lies/disobeys…

Yes everybody lies…but then the majority of people don’t have a deep relationship with God either. I want a deep relationship with Jesus that is why I do my best not to lie or disobey.

Many people only lie out of weakness and fear of consequences. But to lie out of unforced intent because we don’t care about disobeying…that means we start to stop loving the person we disobey. When we intentionally disobey the Church’s Teaching then we are dangering our relationship with the Church and the person (Jesus/God) who gave the Church its values.

When we lie simply out of weakness it does the same thing but is much smaller and more easily forgiven and understood. I think God expects us to try better next time - especially if there are alternatives that do not involve disobedience and which are actually not that hard to do.

Meemai I am curious why you think not having sex for a few weeks is worse than using condoms though?

Yes a condom would be a decent choice in this case. Also really a condom is just a object to prevent sexual transitional ilnesses but also a way to prevent getting a child. Since topic start er has or is getting a child one of the biggest uses is actually useless. So I don’t see any harm in using one even if the church might say it’s bad. Let’s say it would be a sin to have a gun. But what if I had a gun that disassembeled and made unready. Would that still then be a sin? Of course I think then that it would not be to bad since the gun has lost it’s capability to work. It’s just the way I think. Right now I have the gut feeling a lot of people are saying no condom because it is a condom. And do not look at what a condom does.

Here where I live protestants are actually refusing injections against the measles kids are getting handicapped or turning blind as we speak in the protestant area in my country. I just can’t stand that kind of stupidity. It makes me angry.
But let’s get back to us catholics. I think even people with deep relations to God do lie and sin. At least the people that thought they would want to be close to God are refered to as Cathars right? But they got killed by the inquesitions. They would go as far as to not have sex because it would be evil. So not having sex or thinking you may not sin at all would actually be denying that Jesus died for our sins. So sinning is it bad? Yes… But is it the end of the world and will God hate you for it? No…

We humans might get angry at each other when one lies to us and we find out the truth. But God knows all so he cannot be dissapointed with you. He already knows your about to sin when you don’t even realise it yet! So in the end he will also see when you try your best and when your a good person.

Also I am not that big on the church the church is good and stuff. But there have been corrupt pope’s and people might say ‘no big deal there was only one bad pope we have had so many only one bad one what does that matter?’ Well that one bad pope might with false teachings have made all the religious users by that time to listened to him have done bad things that surely would not be ilked by God. So before all else I like to think by myself what would God/Jesus think of this action and I would read in the bible and find it myself before listening to the pope.

Also I’m ticked off that people in Africa are dying of HIV and stuff. Do you think it’s fun to be born on this world with HIV? No it’s not that’s why I think people with HIV should not make children and use condoms. I’ve got handicapped as a baby and I can tell you it sucks.

As to why I think why a few weeks of no sex is worse than using a condom?
If you want to do it, and you can do it with a tool that does not harm anyone (in case of the topic starter) then why not? Like I said the condom has lost one of it’s purposes actually both purposes because topic starter and her husband would not have any sexual ilnesses. So the condom in this case is not preventing children from happening since if sperm got in it would have nowhere to go to and thus the body would reject it even without a condom. And well there’s no protection needed eithers. So we are just talking about a piece of rubber that has no use whatsoever how can that be seen as bad?

I think a lot of catholics are really conventional while I am unconventional. And I like to make people think. But some are blind to reasoning.

In this subject I am just really certain that people are against it because it is a condom without looking at what it does and seeing that what it does is not even relevant in this whole topic. Then people come with mumbo jumbo that a condom does make it so that the two having sex do not connect 100% Well you don’t pull the condom over the whole base of your ‘tool’ the base of your ‘tool’ will make raw contact. So your one. The feeling is different I do aggree on that.

 

[Allegra]

I was just going to leave it at that but now that you are highlighting my concern and seem to disagree please excuse me for bringing the following references to your attention:

“Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life…This particular doctrine…is based on the inseparable connection…which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (Humanae Vitae)

“Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage.” (Donum Vitae)

I think this is where you are misunderstanding the quote you provided. The “inseperable connection” being referenced is between BOTH the unitive and the procreative significance AND the marriage pact. The bond isn’t between the unitive and the procreative significance, but between both of these and the marriage act. If you read the sentence that way, you will realize that nothing I said contradicts this.

Contraception takes different forms. The pill, for example, clearly violates the procreative purpose of sex but not necessarily the unitive. Barrier methods, however, clearly violate both purposes.

If you’d like to see this explained more clearly than I can do it, I recommend the book “Holy Sex!” by Popcak. Chapter 8 explains the unitive aspects of sex in severals ways that I don’t think most people have ever considered. (If they did, they’d soon stop having it with people who obviously don’t love them.) The same chapter goes on to explain the ways in which different forms of contraception infringe on the unitive purpose of sex. The whole book includes quotes and references to Humane Vitae and other Church documents.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think this is where you are misunderstanding the quote you provided. The “inseperable connection” being referenced is between BOTH the unitive and the procreative significance AND the marriage pact. The bond isn’t between the unitive and the procreative significance, but between both of these and the marriage act…

Thanks Allegra. That is an interesting observation which has made me go back through the relevent sections of Humanae Vitae and Donum Vitae (as well as various commentaries) to see how well it fits. I can see how Popcak (or your understanding of him) could come to that conclusion because some of the translated phrases in the Encyclical are in fact ambiguous. However sufficient other phrases and examples do make it sufficiently clear to me that the natural reading of the text goes against Popcak.

That is, the disassociation that makes certain marital sex scenarios objectively immoral is when the two purposes of that act (procreative and unitive [ie actual sexual congress]) can no longer be found together. It is not really the disassociation of both purposes (together) from the marital act.

In any case I do not believe this minor difference of understanding changes anything at all -UNLESS we have different understandings of what the “unitive purpose/end/dimension” of the “marital act” actually is.
Can you quote Popcak’s definition of the unitive end of the marital act along with any reference he may give on that one?

I think this is where we do have significantly different understandings.
I will stick my neck out and say that Popcak looks mistaken if he believes the unitive dimension is lost if seminal fluid is not transmitted to one’s partner. His/your distinction between barrier and other contraceptive methods seems to make clear this is bound up in his understanding.

I would agree with you if you meant that the conjugal act should be called “imperfectly unitive” if any contraception is used because a fully unitive conjugal human act would always be open to life.
.

Barrier methods, however, clearly violate both purposes

When Popcak says this I don’t really see any “clearly” about this opinion - unless he has an unusual definition of the unitive prupose.
Can you provide us an actual quote from his book and and whatever references he may give to support this view?

 

[Abu]

Facing reality with Msgr Cormac P Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, a former judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), who taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross:

**The De-humanization of marital sex
Thu, 05/05/2011 **
Humanae Vitae:
“This particular doctrine… is based on the *inseparable connection *… between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are *both inherent *to the marriage act” (no. 12). Now here indeed (and this is all-important to our present theme) we do have something new. Here in fact a new principle is enunciated which permits a much deeper anthropological and theological analysis of the conjugal act: the principle that its unitive significance and its procreative significance are inherent to it, in inseparable connection.

'This insight of Paul VI is now firmly established in magisterial doctrine. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them” (no. 96). Paul VI stated the principle without submitting it to further analysis. Over the intervening 40 years, however, this analysis has been carried on in papal magisterium, notably in John Paul II’s catechesis on the “theology of the body”.

'In summary, then, we see the power of that principle enunciated by Humanae Vitae: the two meanings of the marital act cannot stand apart. If you separate them, you destroy both meanings; i.e. if you “disconnect” or divorce sexual intercourse from its inherent procreative meaning or function, you deprive it of its unitive meaning and function. The consequenes of this de-humanisation of sexuality, prophetically foretold by Paul VI [13] have become so sadly evident over the past four decades.
'In relation to condomized intercourse in particular, it is beside the point to argue that (e.g. in cases of avoiding possible HIV infection), the intention is not contraceptive. That may be true, but the more important fact is that the act is not unitive; it is in no way expressive of the uniqueness of conjugal sexual intercourse.
‘So, it is not simply that a condomized act is wrong because it is contraceptive. It is wrong because it is denaturalised, being both contra-ceptive and contra-unitive. It has lost its very nature as a physical act of union. It is no longer intercourse between husband and wife such as to signify their mutual conjugal self-donation.’
cormacburke.or.ke/node/984

 

[His_angel]

Blue Horizon,

You’re wrong. The use of a condom is not permitted, even if conception is impossible. Sex must be ordered towards procreation in all cases. Procreation actually taking place isn’t part of that. Infertile, already pregnant, or post-menopausal couples are not allowed to use a condom.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Facing reality with Msgr Cormac P Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, a former judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), who taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross:

“if you “disconnect” or divorce sexual intercourse from its inherent procreative meaning or function, you deprive it of its unitive meaning and function.”

Most of this is very clear and well grounded. However I believe Mnsgr Burke goes beyond the Pope’s principles as enunciated in Donum Vitae (1987) when he makes the above statement.
Donum Vitae stopped well short of explicitly saying that removal of one inherent dimension completely destroys the presence of the other dimension. e.g.
“Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization, in seeking a procreation which is not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal union…”

The Pope is saying two things here:
(1) Contraception removes the procreative end from the conjugal act (and remains silent about the unitive end - therefore we must presume it remains at least imperfectly).
(2) He then contrasts the opposite by an example (HAF) where the unitive (“specific act of conjugal union”=physical sexual intercourse) has been removed from the conjugal act - and the procreative dimension is implied as remaining (“seeking procreation”).

I am not saying the Mnsgr is wrong but I am saying he is giving merely an opinion in an area of moral theology that has, to my knowledge, not yet been fully explicitated by the Popes. This is how theology develops - he is a respected judge of the Rota and like any judge is entitled to “lead a charge” in a certain direction.Whether his leading charge will eventually be confirmed by the Holy See it is hard to tell.
Perhaps there are later Papal documents that you can find that will better support him but I do not know of any at the moment.

Personally I see him slightly going against the grain of where Donum Vitae stopped. I would agree that all contraception (not just barrier methods) makes the unitive dimension of the conjugal act imperfect but to date I find no Papal text that even implies contraception is powerful enough to always render it totally void.

I believe the Mngr’s juridical tendency to a somewhat all or nothing approach to bedroom ethics becomes evident when he states:

• “It should be clear that contraceptives of whatever type dehumanize sexual intercourse… It is so denaturalised as to no longer be the conjugal act; hence its unitive - no less than its procreative - purpose and meaning are also nullified…This is … especially evident in the use of condoms (even if contraception were not the direct purpose of their use). Condomised intercourse … is not sexual intercourse at all.”*

He is asking us to accept that any sex involving a contraceptive is not unitive at all. It is purely selfish, it isn’t marital sex and it isn’t even “sexual intercourse”. I presume he means its no more than two people who happen to be masturbating together (even if its the Pill rather than a condom).
Is he right? He could be. Personally it strikes me as somewhat extreme.
However at the moment I believe it is only his opinion and tends to go slightly against the implied theology of any Papal Documents I have seen (which are more pastoral than juridical these days).

Also note the underlines above. I believe Popcak comes to his conclusion because he has identified “specific conjugal union” (visible sexual union) with “conjugal act” (the “invisible” human moral act). I believe they are different things.
Here “conjugal union” (actual intercourse) I believe needs to be interpretted as an instance fulfilling the meaning of “unitive dimension.” “Conjugal act” is the human moral act which involves marital sexual intercourse and which has the procreative and unitive dimensions as its two ends.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon,

You’re wrong. The use of a condom is not permitted, even if conception is impossible. Sex must be ordered towards procreation in all cases. Procreation actually taking place isn’t part of that. Infertile, already pregnant, or post-menopausal couples are not allowed to use a condom.

If you could quote what you are responding to that would be helpful thanks.

 

[Abu]

The CDF re-emphasises the reality of Humanae Vitae on the inseparable connection between the unitive and the procreative meanings of the conjugal act.

Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith
Instruction On Respect For Human Life In Its Origin
And On The Dignity Of Procreation

4. What Connection Is Required From The Moral Point Of View Between Procreation And The Conjugal Act?
a) The Church’s teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the “**inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning./**U] Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman”.(38) This principle, which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s exalted vocation to parenthood”.(39)
Notes:
(38) POPE PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, 12: AAS 60 (1968) 488-489.
(39) Loc. Cit., Ibid., 489.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect (1987)
tinyurl.com/3yz3n

Msgr Cormac Burke:
‘Contraception is in fact not just an action that lacks meaning; it contradicts the essential meaning which true conjugal intercourse should have as signifying total and unconditional self-donation (“Contraception contradicts the* truth* of conjugal love”, Pope John Paul II: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, VI, 2 (1983), p. 563). Instead of accepting each other totally, contraceptive spouses reject part of each other, because fertility is part of each one of them. They reject part of their mutual love: its power to be fruitful. The love each professes for the other is an incomplete love (cfr. Janet E. Smith: Humanae Vitae: a Generation Later, Catholic University of America Press, 1991, pp. 250-256).

‘In seeking to analyze the concept of marital self-gift, neither anthropology nor legal science can forget that masculinity and femininity include potential fatherhood and motherhood, as a constitutive element of the sexual person. Love between the sexes which excludes that element may be true love, but it is not conjugal love; for in excluding that particular aspect of the other’s or one’s own identity, it neither accepts him or her totally, nor gives self totally. No “traditio suiipsius” is realized; the other is loved only in part. Conjugality truly understood harmonizes marital love and procreation (“Procreation signifies the complete acceptance of the other”: Evangelium Vitae, no. 23); separation between the two, or worse still opposition, derives from or leads to a false understanding of the whole conjugal relation.’
cormacburke.or.ke/node/1181

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The CDF re-emphasises the reality of Humanae Vitae on the inseparable connection between the unitive and the procreative meanings of the conjugal act.

Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith
Instruction On Respect For Human Life In Its Origin
And On The Dignity Of Procreation

4. What Connection Is Required From The Moral Point Of View Between Procreation And The Conjugal Act?
a) The Church’s teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the “**inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning./**U] Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman”.(38) This principle, which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s exalted vocation to parenthood”.(39)
Notes:
(38) POPE PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, 12: AAS 60 (1968) 488-489.
(39) Loc. Cit., Ibid., 489.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect (1987)
tinyurl.com/3yz3n

Msgr Cormac Burke:
‘Contraception is in fact not just an action that lacks meaning; it contradicts the essential meaning which true conjugal intercourse should have as signifying total and unconditional self-donation (“Contraception contradicts the* truth* of conjugal love”, Pope John Paul II: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, VI, 2 (1983), p. 563). Instead of accepting each other totally, contraceptive spouses reject part of each other, because fertility is part of each one of them. They reject part of their mutual love: its power to be fruitful. The love each professes for the other is an incomplete love (cfr. Janet E. Smith: Humanae Vitae: a Generation Later, Catholic University of America Press, 1991, pp. 250-256).

‘In seeking to analyze the concept of marital self-gift, neither anthropology nor legal science can forget that masculinity and femininity include potential fatherhood and motherhood, as a constitutive element of the sexual person. Love between the sexes which excludes that element may be true love, but it is not conjugal love; for in excluding that particular aspect of the other’s or one’s own identity, it neither accepts him or her totally, nor gives self totally. No “traditio suiipsius” is realized; the other is loved only in part. Conjugality truly understood harmonizes marital love and procreation (“Procreation signifies the complete acceptance of the other”: Evangelium Vitae, no. 23); separation between the two, or worse still opposition, derives from or leads to a false understanding of the whole conjugal relation.’
cormacburke.or.ke/node/1181

Abu unless you personally write a few relevent sentences relating the chunks of text you toss in here to the direction of discussion at hand then I suggest few people will take notice. Neither can I find anything relevant after having gone through this and the links you provided.

To summarise: Noone is questioning the influence of the two ends of the marital act (which mirror the two ends of marriage itself) on each other.

I presently disagree with Mons Burke (and possibly Popcak) that the Popes (to the best of my knowledge) have ever stated/implied that loss of the procreative end must mean total loss of the unitive dimension when it comes to contraceptive conjugal acts (eg using the Pill). Yes, I accept the unitive dimension may well be lessened.

I asked if you could show me Papal statements to back up your view. I do not really see anything relevant above.

Even Mons Bourke here seems to say attenuation of the unitive dimension (mutual self giving) caused by loss of procreative dimension is only partial: "Instead of accepting each other totally, contraceptive spouses reject part of each other…". This suggests there is still an imperfect/partial mutal self-giving that may well be still taking place.