Struggling to Understand Church Teaching on Contraception

[cominghome1966]

Here is what makes sense to me. I’m sort of a numbers-person so this might resonate with others who have a similar inclination.

Artificial contraception blocks the “one flesh” nature of marriage, since one or both partners withholds their fertility from the other within the act of coitus. To borrow an analogy from mathematics, the union of two sets is a union when all elements of both sets are present. If one or more elements of one or both sets is missing, then it is not a union.

The missing elements, in this case, would be the fertility of one or both spouses during coitus.

Again borrowing from mathematics, a contracepted act of coitus is better described as an intersection than a union.

For example: let A = (1,2,3) and let B = (3,4,5).

The union of A and B = (1,2,3,4,5). All of the elemtents of both sets are present.

The intersection of A and B = (3). 1,2,4 and 5 have been excluded so it is not a union.

In NFP, the union of two sets remains intact (assuming a correct intention). This is because NFP simply means “avoiding coitus during periods deemed to be fertile.” Partners are not withholding their fertility from each other within the act of coitus, so describing it as a union is correct. It is not best described as an intersection, because it is not an act where elements are excluded.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Partners are not withholding their fertility from each other within the act of coitus, so describing it as a union is correct.

Right on . By not performing the “coitus”, they withhold themselves from each other. They also withhold the unitive part from each other. The phrase coming to mind: “to throw out the baby with the bathwater”.

 

[cominghome1966]

Right on . By not performing the “coitus”, they withhold themselves from each other.

Do you believe that couples are commanded to engage in coitus all the time? I assumed that we agreed that couples can refrain from coitus. Was I wrong about that assumption?

They also withhold the unitive part from each other. The phrase coming to mind: “to throw out the baby with the bathwater”.

Remember, we are talking about coitus, not the general relationship. That is what contraception is all about, after all. Contraception is about coitus and controlling its effects. So any questions about contraception are really questions about coitus.

 

[Rau]

Right on . By not performing the “coitus”, they withhold themselves from each other.

Not unless suicide is part of the plan. It’s not necessary to have sex all the time or whenever the idea comes up, to be together. We can watch a movie. And sometimes we have to apart - such as when we go to work.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Do you believe that couples are commanded to engage in coitus all the time?

Who talks about “commanded”? According to my experience, people who are in love with each other want to have sex whenever they feel like it. (And no, I am NOT talking about agape or filia or storge… I am talking about eros, if you know what that means.)

I assumed that we agreed that couples can refrain from coitus. Was I wrong about that assumption?

Of course not. If a couple wishes to practice full abstinence, it is their own business; but in this case the “unitive” aspect is also “gone”.

Contraception is about coitus and controlling its effects. So any questions about contraception are really questions about coitus.

Not really. Contraception is about avoiding pregnancy while having sex. And sex is much more varied than a vaginal intercourse. Also it is much more “unitive” than the old “Bam, bam, thank you ma’am” routine. However, you will not know that until you try it…

 

[cominghome1966]

Who talks about “commanded”? According to my experience, people who are in love with each other want to have sex whenever they feel like it. (And no, I am NOT talking about agape or filia or storge… I am talking about eros, if you know what that means.)

You equated the following two things:

1. When couples withhold themselves from each other by not engaging in coitus.
2. When couples withhold their fertility from each other in an act of coitus.

Those two things are not the same. The Church does not teach that the one flesh union is disrupted during times when couples are not engaging in coitus. The Church does teach that contraception disrupts the one-flesh union, since within the act of coitus one or both spouses is withholding their fertility.

Here is the reason that I asked if you believed that couples were commanded to engage in coitus at all times. If those two things are the same, as you thought they were, then it would follow that couples would need to engage in coitus at all times in order to maintain the one flesh union.

Of course not. If a couple wishes to practice full abstinence, it is their own business; but in this case the “unitive” aspect is also “gone”.

The context was not total abstinence. The context was refraining from coitus at times while still maintaining a one flesh union in marriage.

Not really. Contraception is about avoiding pregnancy while having sex. And sex is much more varied than a vaginal intercourse. Also it is much more “unitive” than the old “Bam, bam, thank you ma’am” routine. However, you will not know that until you try it…

You can separate coitus from contraception and it is still coitus, but you can’t separate contraception from coitus and have it still be thought of as contraception. Contraception is linked to coitus.

 

[AiyanaS]

You can separate coitus from contraception and it is still coitus, but you can’t separate contraception from coitus and have it still be thought of as contraception. Contraception is linked to coitus.

That’s because contraception was created to be used for sex. Obviously if something was meant to be used in relation to something else, it can’t be separated from it. Just like NFP was created to be used for sex, you can still have sex separate from NFP but NFP is not NFP without sex. Neither NFP or contraception have a use without the component of sex.

 

[pensmama87]

That’s because contraception was created to be used for sex. Obviously if something was meant to be used in relation to something else, it can’t be separated from it. Just like NFP was created to be used for sex, you can still have sex separate from NFP but NFP is not NFP without sex. Neither NFP or contraception have a use without the component of sex.

So if I take a bunch of laxatives to help me lose weight, or if I make myself throw up after eating, that’s the same as eating less food?

 

[AiyanaS]

So if I take a bunch of laxatives to help me lose weight, or if I make myself throw up after eating, that’s the same as eating less food?

And is waiting until you have chronic diarrhea to eat, so that what you consume will just pass right through you before your body has the ability to gain any nourishment from it, a good way to get the taste but not the calories?

 

[pensmama87]

And is waiting until you have chronic diarrhea to eat, so that what you consume will just pass right through you before your body has the ability to gain any nourishment from it, a good way to get the taste but not the calories?

Except chronic diarrhea is not a normal state of the human body, but rather a sign of illness. A woman not being able to conceive during certain parts of her cycle is normal, healthy functioning.

ETA: It also occurs to me that typically one has no or very little desire to eat when ill. It’s true that sexual desire tends to increase when women are most fertile, but arousal and climax are still possible during the rest of the cycle.

The point is: this is how the body works. We recognize that in any other system, to disrupt healthy functioning is disordered. Medical treatment is designed, for those systems, to restore healthy functioning. But somehow, we call breaking a woman’s fertility “health care.”

 

[AiyanaS]

Except chronic diarrhea is not a normal state of the human body, but rather a sign of illness. A woman not being able to conceive during certain parts of her cycle is normal, healthy functioning.

Just like bulimia is a disorder and contraception is not. And the use of laxatives to increase GI motility is abuse of medication, the use of contraception is not the abuse of itself.

Also, for someone like me, who has no colon, chronic diarrhea is an everyday occurrence. To do what I stated above is not a sign of illness for people like me, it’s the normal way our body functions (unfortunately).

 

[pensmama87]

Just like bulimia is a disorder and contraception is not. And the use of laxatives to increase GI motility is abuse of medication, the use of contraception is not the abuse of itself.

Also, for someone like me, who has no colon, chronic diarrhea is an everyday occurrence. To do what I stated above is not a sign of illness for people like me, it’s the normal way our body functions (unfortunately).

Why not? Just because it’s your reproductive system instead of your digestive system? That seems the only distinction to me, and it’s a curious one indeed. Why does the reproductive system get singled out as so special that we say the rules that apply elsewhere can’t apply here? (Keep in mind that it’s Western society at large doing this only in the past 100-odd years, and NOT the Church.)

I’m sorry that you suffer from those medical difficulties. But no, I still would not venture to say that chronic diarrhea is normal, in the sense of, “how it’s supposed to work.” A woman who’s had a hysterectomy knows that while it may have been medically necessary because of some health issue, that’s not the same as removing a healthy, functioning uterus. A woman who takes hormone therapy to treat ovarian cysts is not doing the same thing as someone who takes hormones to stop ovulating.

Even though I used to be pro-contraception myself, it just seems weirder and weirder to me over time that the major cognitive dissonance required to accept it is so widespread. We have made sex into a god, and think we can have it whenever, with whoever, however we want, and should be able to turn off completely the natural end of it - to the point where if it’s not naturally possible, that’s seen as the exact same as breaking it on purpose! This is insanity, and is still recognized as such with regard to pretty much any other area of life.