What's so bad about contraception, anyway?

[Jaaanosik]

That’s fine. I tried to explain it and I do the best I can. None of my words have connected with you or Debora at any point in the past and I think we just have different ways of thinking and approaching the World. Don’t take offense though if I don’t give your criticism much value seeing as you will not attempt to point out where you think my argument is flawed.

I said it, you seem to fail to recognize the God’s moral order.
Specifically, it appears you keep natural laws at the same level as the God’s laws which arguably is not true.

 

[Nate13]

Well, I see what you’re saying – intercourse, in all species, fulfills a biological function. For all animals besides humans, it exists for the sole reason of propagating the species.

Not quite true. In some mammals it works to be unitive as well. This has ramifications for your arguments down the line. The unitive function of sex is not only seen in humans.

However, it exists in human nature for both, and not for one primarily and the other as a side effect. For us, it is equally a means to achieve each purpose of marriage. In fact, from a philosophical / theological point of view, I think it’s valid to ask the following question: given the fact that humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation, isn’t it possible that sexual reproduction exists in order that it would be available to humans, and therefore, would be a means to achieve the unitive purpose of marriage?

First as I said to Debora my argument was not about saying one purpose is more important than the other. It was about explaining why the two are inseparable, because that fact is what makes contraception wrong.

Some animals possess the unitive function as well though. There is nothing extra spectacular about having the unitive function of sex, except that its existence correlates to a higher level of intelligence.

In other words, sexual reproduction is not biologically necessary. In fact, some species do not exhibit it primarily (or at all). For non-human species, there is no unitive function that sexual reproduction fulfills. Given that it fulfills both purposes of marriage in humans, one might assert that it exists in the way that it does specifically because it is ordered toward the purposes of marriage!

Reproduction is biologically necessary, or else biology would not have been around very long haha. Anyways I don’t think has much effect once you know the unitive function of sex is not only seen in humans.

Definitely an interesting twist but I think it doesn’t quite work out considering the unitive function is not only seen in humans. Thanks for your thoughts though and I’m glad you have caught on to the perspective I was talking from *

 

[Debora123]

Equally important and inseparable from each other. The old way it was put makes it easy to imply that one is more important than the other, but it did not actually say so.

Uh, it DID say so. Very clearly. But alright, sounds like you’re agreeing with gorgias on this one. So now it’s 2 vs 1.

 

[Debora123]

Pray for your heart to take our Faith seriously. God will answer your prayer.

I take my faith seriously, I don’t take these arguments seriously. For obvious reasons. One of them being the fact that no one here can even agree on what the Church teaching actually IS in regards to this subject. No wonder I get more confused the more questions I ask around here about this.

 

[Nate13]

I said it, you seem to fail to recognize the God’s moral order.
Specifically, it appears you keep natural laws at the same level as the God’s laws which arguably is not true.

I believe I have pretty clearly laid out why biologically the unitive function of sex and the procreative function of sex are inseparable but equally important.

You seem to be ceding that point or at least admitting you cannot find a flaw in my reasoning above at this time. However, now your going back to your argument that there is a higher law that supersedes natural law.

That reasoning would make sense if someone else had designed us and then God had come in and taken over and set up his law. The problem is God designed us and gave us Divine Revelation as well. It would seem silly to design us one way and then tell us to act a different way later would it not, at least coming from a perfect being?

Now sw85 in the past, and I, will cede that this is possible in certain circumstances. sw85 used it to explain why God might command the Israelite’s to commit what many consider genocide in some circumstances. A direct order from God can supersede natural law in other words. There is proof of direct commands of that though in the Bible where it appears God specifically told the Israelite’s to go and kill all of group of people including the children.

I would ask if you can provide a specific place where God says that we are to ignore the natural state of our being in reference to contraception.

 

[Nate13]

Uh, it DID say so. Very clearly. But alright, sounds like you’re agreeing with gorgias on this one. So now it’s 2 vs 1.

If so it was a misunderstanding on their part. Does the wording change actually change anything in principle in the teaching or the application of it? Even if the unitive purpose was less important than the procreative purpose (which it is not) that still does not say they are separable which is what is really of importance here. The unitive purpose could be half as important as the procreative purpose but if they stated these purposes could be separated from one another in the sexual act you would be able to have sex for the unitive purpose only.

Time moves on and the Church gets better at describing its teachings so they are best understood. How many different wordings do you think the Trinity went through before they settled on one? Another example would be the idea of transubstantiation. I’m sure they described it all sorts of ways infallibly before they finally made a new word lol.

 

[Debora123]

If so it was a misunderstanding on their part. Does the wording change, actually change anything in principle in the teaching or the application? Even if the unitive purpose was less important than the procreative purpose (which it is not) that still does not say they are separable which is what is really of importance here.

Whoa now, you’re making it sound like I’m seeing things. Which is completely unfair. At least acknowledge the fact that there was a disagreement here among 2 members on what Church teaching actually was… which is why I wrote my post saying “alright folks, which is it then” in the fist place.

And besides, where’s all this “inseparable” business coming from? That wasn’t even what I was talking about.

 

[Gorgias]

Not quite true. In some mammals it works to be unitive as well. This has ramifications for your arguments down the line.

Interesting! You’re right – that would have ramifications to my argument, at least on its face. Tell me a bit about it – how is the sexual act “unitive” for non-human animals? What form does this unitive function take?

(More to the point, I think, though, is the notion of the unitive purpose of marriage in humans. Given that the “unitive function” in humans speaks to the indissolubility of marriage, I would argue that this unitive aspect supports the good of the spouses. I would think that any assertion of “unitive” purpose in non-human species points only toward viability of the raising of offspring. That is, in non-human animals, anything that might be considered “unitive” in the sexual act is itself oriented not toward the mating pair, but toward the offspring produced by them. In other words, any putatively unitive value has its object not in the couple, but in the offspring – that is, not in the “union” at all, but in the “propagation of the species”!

So, at least at first blush, “unitive” aspects in non-human species are really just side effects of “procreative” effectiveness. Not so in humans, though – in this case, it really is oriented solely toward the unity of the spouses.

 

[Gorgias]

Equally important and inseparable from each other. The old way it was put makes it easy to imply that one is more important than the other, but it did not actually say so.

The point of my last few posts has been to show why the are inseparable not why one is more important than the other, which one is not.

LOL… I’ve got to work on my reading skills – in your responses to me, it seemed you were arguing against this notion!

 

[Debora123]

LOL… I’ve got to work on my reading skills – in your responses to me, it seemed you were arguing against this notion!

I get that too sometimes, so perhaps it’s not just our reading skills.

 

[Nate13]

Whoa now, you’re making it sound like I’m seeing things. Which is completely unfair. At least acknowledge the fact that there was a disagreement here among 2 members on what Church teaching actually was… which is why I wrote my post saying “alright folks, which is it then” in the fist place.

And besides, where’s all this “inseparable” business coming from? That wasn’t even what I was talking about.

Yes they were disagreeing over wording lol. I don’t know if they thought it was more than that, but it is not.

And your second question from the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Saying the two are inseparable is what the above amounts to mean.

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

You see it here again looking at the issue from a different perspective that of total self giving. The idea that contraception is contradictory to the act, which makes it inherently immoral.

From Humane Vitae:

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.

Humane Vitae is explicit on this point if you don’t trust my summary of the Catechism.

 

[Debora123]

Yes they were disagreeing over wording lol. I don’t know if they thought it was more than that, but it is not.

It didn’t look like it had anything to do with the “wording.”

From what I gathered, one thought the procreative aspect was primary to sex/marriage and unitive was the secondary aspect, and the other member thought both aspects were equal in importance.

That is not a difference in wording, that is a difference on what it actually IS.

This really should not be so complicated. The fact that it is raises even more doubt, quite frankly.

 

[Nate13]

Interesting! You’re right – that would have ramifications to my argument, at least on its face. Tell me a bit about it – how is the sexual act “unitive” for non-human animals? What form does this unitive function take?

Lol your talking to the engineer here remember. Not the biggest animal guy ever I consider the unitive function of sex to be present by default wherever you see the male and female of a species showing monogamous behavior and working together to raise children. Apes/monkeys would be the best example of this, and I believe dolphins would be another good example. Swans apparently do as well. You need to watch more Animal Planet

(More to the point, I think, though, is the notion of the unitive purpose of marriage in humans. Given that the “unitive function” in humans speaks to the indissolubility of marriage, I would argue that this unitive aspect supports the good of the spouses.

Truth. But why do you need indissoluble marriage if there is no concept of marriage? Indissoluble marriage gets its purpose for existence from the fact that children exist and it has been shown that kids are best served by a married mother and father. If children did not exist at all in nature what would be the point of binding two people together indissolubly from a biological standpoint?

I would think that any assertion of “unitive” purpose in non-human species points only toward viability of the raising of offspring. That is, in non-human animals, anything that might be considered “unitive” in the sexual act is itself oriented not toward the mating pair, but toward the offspring produced by them. In other words, any putatively unitive value has its object not in the couple, but in the offspring – that is, not in the “union” at all, but in the “propagation of the species”!

Exactly which is why the unitive purpose of marriage was largely ignored in the earlier centuries of the Church in writings, and only just beginning to be recognized specifically after the Second Vatican Council. It was not that people did not realize it existed or that it was important, but rather it was all seen as one in the same, which in essence it is. They obviously recognized the unitive function of sex because they recognized the importance of indissoluble marriage, possibly even more so than we may today.

So, at least at first blush, “unitive” aspects in non-human species are really just side effects of “procreative” effectiveness. Not so in humans, though – in this case, it really is oriented solely toward the unity of the spouses.

Yes the unitive function of sex in marriage between humans has a lot more meaning than in animals because we have immortal souls and a lot more intelligence. The bond between husband and spouse is much more complex than it is between animals but that is do mostly in part to our increased intelligence and the issues that brings, and not so much that the bond itself is any stronger at least from a biological perspective. Spiritually, of course. You could probably argue the unitive bond in some animals is even stronger than it is in humans because they reason less and have less intelligence to get in the way

 

[Gorgias]

You do realize that the quote I provided is Sent. Certa - that means it is an infallible teaching that has not yet been raised to dogma. It is not just a Canon that can be changed.

OK… I hate debating putative infallibility, since it comes off like saying, “I don’t want to follow what the Church teaches”. Yet, your statements here smack of a perspective that says, “The Church used to say X and now it says Y. I’m sticking with X; forget that the Church doesn’t teach it anymore”.

So, let me ask you: what authoritative Catholic source asserts that the statement you quoted is a “certain belief”? (Note: catholicfidelity.com doesn’t count – I’m looking for a statement from the Church herself.)

To your particular assertion, though – that the statement you provided (from catholicfidelity.com) is “infallible”, let me quote from that site (cf catholicfidelity.com)

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions declared Ex Cathedra (cf. the 1869-70 Vatican Council I definition).

So, I might charitably suggest that unless you are able to cite a document of a general council or an ex cathedra papal statement, you might consider admitting that your “infallible” (and therefore “irrevocable”) teaching is neither of these, and rather, that the current Code of Canon Law supercedes the notion you’re advocating.

Blessings,
G.

 

[Nate13]

OK… I hate debating putative infallibility, since it comes off like saying, “I don’t want to follow what the Church teaches”. Yet, your statements here smack of a perspective that says, “The Church used to say X and now it says Y. I’m sticking with X; forget that the Church doesn’t teach it anymore”.

So, let me ask you: what authoritative Catholic source asserts that the statement you quoted is a “certain belief”? (Note: catholicfidelity.com doesn’t count – I’m looking for a statement from the Church herself.)

To your particular assertion, though – that the statement you provided (from catholicfidelity.com) is “infallible”, let me quote from that site (cf catholicfidelity.com)

So, I might charitably suggest that unless you are able to cite a document of a general council or an ex cathedra papal statement, you might consider admitting that your “infallible” (and therefore “irrevocable”) teaching is neither of these, and rather, that the current Code of Canon Law supercedes the notion you’re advocating.

Blessings,
G.

This is a side track. There is another current thread specifically on this topic and people should go there to find at least 5 pages on this specific topic trying to answer this question coming from a “stubborn” op

You are correct though in that the “its infallible, so accept it!” argument is not effective.

 

[Gorgias]

You need to watch more Animal Planet

LOL! I would settle for a little more time to relax and watch any TV!

Nate13:

I consider the unitive function of sex to be present by default wherever you see the male and female of a species showing monogamous behavior and working together to raise children.

I would respond, though, that monogamous behavior / shared purpose demonstrates only what you mention: the goal of raising children. It does not, on its face, demonstrate or even imply that a purported “unitive function of sex” was the motivation that drove that behavior!

(OK – as an infrequent Animal Planet watcher, I don’t know, so let me ask – when we see animals sharing parental duties, do we always see continued sexual activity? when we see a lack of active searching for different sexual partners, do we see a continuation of sexual activity between parents?)

Indissoluble marriage gets its purpose for existence from the fact that children exist

In the 1917 Code, sure. Not in the current CIC. That teaching has been superceded by one that asserts a non-hierarchical set of purposes of marriage!

and it has been shown that kids are best served by a married mother and father.

Nonetheless, optimal upbringing is not mentioned by the Church (as opposed to “education”, which is – and I don’t think that, on the basis of what you’ve mentioned here, you can make the case that the education of children is dependant on an integral marriage. (There’s a certain correlation there, but not a strict causative relationship.))

If children did not exist at all in nature what would be the point of binding two people together indissolubly from a biological standpoint?

That’s exactly the point! Marriage doesn’t derive its purpose strictly from a biological standpoint! So… attempting to define marriage in strictly biological terms – especially considering that a proper Christian anthropology would assert that strictly biological considerations aren’t the end-all and be-all of human existence – is a non-starter!

Yes the unitive function of sex in marriage between humans has a lot more meaning than in animals because we have immortal souls and a lot more intelligence. The bond between husband and spouse is much more complex than it is between animals but that is do mostly in part to our increased intelligence and the issues that brings, and not so much that the bond is any stronger.

I think your first sentence hints at the reason why your second sentence fails: “increased intelligence” and “complex bonds” aren’t at the heart of the reason that marriage is what it is: rather, “immortal souls” that are made in the image and likeness of God are! The unitive purpose of marriage, expressed (imperfectly) and enhanced, as they are, in the conjugal act, speaks directly to this imaging of God’s love in our experience of human marriage!

You could probably argue the unitive bond in some animals is even stronger than it is in humans because they reason less and have less intelligence to get in the way

Ouch!

I think, though, that I would argue that this wouldn’t be evidence of a “unitive bond”, but of a (largely instinctual and biologically conditioned) set of physical behaviors…!

Blessings,

G.

p.s., thanks for this discussion! It’s been an opportunity for me to step back and engage in some fruitful reflection on marriage!!!

 

[Nate13]

LOL! I would settle for a little more time to relax and watch any TV!

I would respond, though, that monogamous behavior / shared purpose demonstrates only what you mention: the goal of raising children. It does not, on its face, demonstrate or even imply that a purported “unitive function of sex” was the motivation that drove that behavior!

We are talking about animals so there is no motivation in a reasoning sense. The sexual urge (that humans have as well) would be the motivation that makes them want to have sex.

Read this however: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Sex_for_pleasure

It describes how some animals do have sex for pleasure, or in other words a good mutual feeling that makes them bond. They are doing it because they want to bond, but it makes them bond none the less which was my point. I think dolphins would be the best example of this if you want one particular example to look into more.

Obviously animals do not reason and they do not choose to have sex out of a want to bond but rather end up doing so after being motivated by a sexual urge. Humans act similarly although if there was no sexual urge i.e no pleasure do you think humans would still want to “bond”? We are motivated by a sexual urge as well, however we have the ability control ours through reason. This idea is expressed really well in Love and Responsibility.

(OK – as an infrequent Animal Planet watcher, I don’t know, so let me ask – when we see animals sharing parental duties, do we always see continued sexual activity? when we see a lack of active searching for different sexual partners, do we see a continuation of sexual activity between parents?)

Very few have sex for pleasure or bonding above procreating as seen in the above wikipedia link. Some do show this behavior though. Again, my point was that sex is a bonding experience for some animals, not that they have sex at times exclusively for bonding. When they have sex to procreate, it also bonds the two together though.

In the 1917 Code, sure. Not in the current CIC. That teaching has been superceded by one that asserts a non-hierarchical set of purposes of marriage!

You are taking my statement here:

Indissoluble marriage gets its purpose for existence from the fact that children exist

And assuming this implies one purpose is more important than the other. Is it not possible as I suggest that one only has reason to exist because the other does, yet they are both equally important for a marriage still?

Nonetheless, optimal upbringing is not mentioned by the Church (as opposed to “education”, which is – and I don’t think that, on the basis of what you’ve mentioned here, you can make the case that the education of children is dependant on an integral marriage. (There’s a certain correlation there, but not a strict causative relationship.))

uh its mentioned a lot by the Church when you start talking about homosexual marriages haha. A mother and father each provide specific emotional and material support that a child needs. Yes, it is causative but I’ll reiterate that this does not imply the two purposes are not both equally important for the success of a marriage and raising kids.

That’s exactly the point! Marriage doesn’t derive its purpose strictly from a biological standpoint! So… attempting to define marriage in strictly biological terms – especially considering that a proper Christian anthropology would assert that strictly biological considerations aren’t the end-all and be-all of human existence – is a non-starter!

We were created by God in strictly biological terms though and humanity didn’t receive the totality of Divine Revelation for quite awhile. I’m only describing marriage in strictly biological terms as a foundation to apply the added meaning that Divine Revelation supplies. Divine Revelation does not contradict the biological reality though, but rather upholds it.

I think your first sentence hints at the reason why your second sentence fails: “increased intelligence” and “complex bonds” aren’t at the heart of the reason that marriage is what it is: rather, “immortal souls” that are made in the image and likeness of God are! The unitive purpose of marriage, expressed (imperfectly) and enhanced, as they are, in the conjugal act, speaks directly to this imaging of God’s love in our experience of human marriage!

Haha are not our bodies also created in the image and likeness of God, and is this not actually the great reality being expressed here? God did not say our souls alone were created in his image and likeness. He also did not say:

Gen 2:24
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one soul.”

He said:

Gen 2:24
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

This “one flesh” includes the spiritual reality as well but that is not even the primary meaning of what is being related here.

Ouch!
I think, though, that I would argue that this wouldn’t be evidence of a “unitive bond”, but of a (largely instinctual and biologically conditioned) set of physical behaviors…!
Blessings,
G.
p.s., thanks for this discussion! It’s been an opportunity for me to step back and engage in some fruitful reflection on marriage!!!

Haha its true. Some animals are better at being monogamous than humans are currently lol. As you said though when your purely just acting of instinct and you don’t have reason to get in the way it makes sense that this is so.

 

[Nate13]

I have a late edit to the above post:

In this first part of the response it should read:

They are not doing it because they want to bond, but it makes them bond none the less which was my point.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I believe I have pretty clearly laid out why biologically the unitive function of sex and the procreative function of sex are inseparable but equally important.

You seem to be ceding that point or at least admitting you cannot find a flaw in my reasoning above at this time. However, now your going back to your argument that there is a higher law that supersedes natural law.

That reasoning would make sense if someone else had designed us and then God had come in and taken over and set up his law. The problem is God designed us and gave us Divine Revelation as well. It would seem silly to design us one way and then tell us to act a different way later would it not, at least coming from a perfect being?

Now sw85 in the past, and I, will cede that this is possible in certain circumstances. sw85 used it to explain why God might command the Israelite’s to commit what many consider genocide in some circumstances. A direct order from God can supersede natural law in other words. There is proof of direct commands of that though in the Bible where it appears God specifically told the Israelite’s to go and kill all of group of people including the children.

I would ask if you can provide a specific place where God says that we are to ignore the natural state of our being in reference to contraception.

Well, you seem to forget that God’s commands to love God and to love your neighbor are above the natural law.
Self preservation instinct is one of the biggest if not the biggest natural law.
Jesus left this natural law behind on the cross.
Maximilian Kolbe left this natural law behind in the camp. People who do this are regarded as saints by the Church.

HV says that all contraception (even non abortive) is wrong because it contradicts moral order, it contradicts natural law. What natural law? Procreation.
Wait a minute, clergy celibacy leaves this natural law behind as well and it does not contradicts moral order. Do you know why? Love God and love your neighbor.

Going against natural law does not break the God’s moral order if you do it in order to follow God’s love commands.
The issue can not be that the non abortive contraception goes against natural law and contradicts moral order because celibacy does the same.
The issue then becomes only how you do it.

So how? The HV say through the NFP and the abstinence.
But what if NFP does not work for everybody? Well, then too bad you are supposed to follow the abstinence.
Here comes my second argument that the abstinence is not morally sound for all the couples because it does not pass double effect principle.

Another point of view: the abstinence is tough for the clergy when they go to bed alone but married couples are supposed to go to bed with loved one next them and they are supposed to follow the abstinence? That’s what I call torture.

 

[Castello]

I take my faith seriously, I don’t take these arguments seriously. For obvious reasons. One of them being the fact that no one here can even agree on what the Church teaching actually IS in regards to this subject. No wonder I get more confused the more questions I ask around here about this.

Pick up a copy of the Catechism and a copy of Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. Using those and the vatican.va website, you can find all of the Church teachings for yourself.