Spirituality and the unitive dimension

Spirituality and the unitive dimension	Birth Control in the Catholic Church

James
Member

November 02, 2002, 03:42 PM

Spirituality and the unitive dimension
Why does the Church condemn contraception? The best way to answer this question is to look at the nature of the conjugal act. The conjugal act has both a physical or biological dimension, and an interpersonal or spiritual one. Physically it is a procreative act; it is designed to place the male seed near the female egg in order to fertilize it. Obviously, not every conjugal act results in conception, but this orientation to procreation is built into the nature of each act.

But the conjugal act has an interpersonal side, as well. Its exercise creates a special kind of intimacy between two people. This sharing of themselves binds them together both psychologically and spiritually and creates the best environment for raising any child that may be conceived. If the physical dimension of the act is procreative, so is this personal dimension in the large sense of the term.

There are various ways in which we can go against the nature of the conjugal act. Pope Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae, states that "every conjugal act whatsoever must be intrinsically open to the transmission of life." What he has in mind is the biological nature of the conjugal act, and he is saying that we ought not to act in such a way to thwart this aspect of the conjugal act.

But we can act against the interpersonal dimension of the conjugal act, as well. We can, for example, leave the biological dimension of the act intact, but not have the proper attitude of sharing and love that the spiritual dimension of this act calls for. We can also have extramarital sex purposely to procreate, but with no unitive dimension present, because we are not in a sacramental relationship. This is one reason I assert that the unitive in many ways is paramount to the marriage relationship. Couples who frequently engage in marital relations, as the apostle Paul tells us "..don't deprive one another..", avoid sexual immorality. This is one reason NFP was originally accepted by the Church.

The reason the Church condemns contraception is because it thwarts the biological procreativeness of the conjugal act.

Is this kind of analysis acceptable to people on both sides of the debate?

The principle objection is that the Church’s position does not appear consistent. If each and every conjugal act has to be open to procreation, how can the Church approve of exercising the conjugal act and deliberately avoiding conception, which is what happens in natural family planning?

Can anyone show that the Church’s position is not really inconsistent? Can anyone show that NFP does not introduce a probablism of its own? And can those people do so without accusing others who disagree of sophistry? Stick to the subject. Every time you NFPonly groupies go the low road you diminish your credibility. (NF)

We are giving you an opportunity to prove to us the reasonableness of your arguments. Show us that you consider it a privilege to do so. So far, it appears you are arguing your points begrudgingly.

N.F.H.

November 02, 2002, 09:26 PM

James wrote: If each and every conjugal act has to be open to procreation, how can the Church approve of exercising the conjugal act and deliberately avoiding conception, which is what happens in natural family planning?

Choosing to abstain is surely not immoral; in no way by doing so do they choose to damage, destroy, or impede anything good. And obviously they are not choosing to do anything evil when they do choose to engage in the conjugal act during the wife's infertile period, because the conjugal act is good, not evil.

So, clearly, in those elements above, there is no problem? Clearly, there is a difference between ABC and NFP in those regards.

Now, a separate issue:

If they acted in this way for selfish reasons if they did so because they refused to accept the gift of life, then they would be acting immorally because of the ends motivating their behavior. But if they act in this way because they have serious reasons for avoiding a pregnancy here and now, they are surely not acting immorally.

So, NFP can be the equivalent of ABC, morally, if Church teaching is not followed.

It is not just the consequentialistic aspect that renders ABC immoral but also the essentialistic objective criteria of damaging, destroying or impeding a natural biological function ordered toward a premoral or ontic good.

In essence, yes, NFP may degenerate into a contraceptive mentality equivalent to ABC, but it never matches ABC in any way regarding the thwarting of essentialistic objective criteria.

The element of probabilism only enters our consideration when the consequentialistic aspect is being evaluated, such as when NFP departs from Church teaching. It always remains in the picture for ABC, however.

By this analysis, I can better understand what JSM was trying to convey, that the physical aspect is an over-riding criterion, and I stand corrected on that front. I would not say that it is only the physicalist aspect that makes homosexuality immoral. I would agree that pre-marital and extra-marital sex are wrong because they frustrate a wider conception of the procreative dimension.

Does this seem inconsistent?

N.F.

Editor
Member

November 03, 2002, 11:47 AM

(from N.F.) James wrote: If each and every conjugal act has to be open to procreation, how can the Church approve of exercising the conjugal act and deliberately avoiding conception, which is what happens in natural family planning?

Choosing to abstain is surely not immoral; in no way by doing so do they choose to damage, destroy, or impede anything good. And obviously they are not choosing to do anything evil when they do choose to engage in the conjugal act during the wife's infertile period, because the conjugal act is good, not evil.

Very good! Only you didn't really answer his question, which wasn't about abstaining nor whether or not the sex act is good or not. Please re-read the question you thought you were replying to and you'll see that you haven't really told us how NFP practitioners are open to new life when they have sex in the infertile period of the month.

I'll pass on replying to the rest of your post here, as I think I've already replied to the questions and issues you raise on another thread.

N.F.

November 03, 2002, 01:15 PM

good insight, wrong question
Ed. wrote: you haven't really told us how NFP practitioners are open to new life when they have sex in the infertile period of the month.

One of you set forth a spiritually procreative dimension as fostering the unitive aspect of the relationship, so, in that very manner, they are open to the procreative dimension. Isn't the more important question how ABC practitioners are open to new life during the fertile period of the month?

N.F.

Momz
Member

November 03, 2002, 02:06 PM

N.F., when you write: One of you set forth a spiritually procreative dimension as fostering the unitive aspect of the relationship, so, in that very manner, they are open to the procreative dimension. Isn't the more important question how ABC practitioners are open to new life during the fertile period of the month? , you have implicitly answered this question set forth by James:

quote:
The reason the Church condemns contraception is because it thwarts the biological procreativeness of the conjugal act.

Is this kind of analysis acceptable to people on both sides of the debate?

Also, you have thereby explicitly (and I don't want to suggest unwittingly) embraced an existentialistic analysis.

I don't mean this as a criticism. The Church has done the same thing, engaging an existentialistic interpretation of natural law by allowing NFP for grave and serious reasons (which, nowadays, NFPer's claim needn't be very serious after all).

The point is that it is quite possible that your position and the Church's position and the ABC position are really not that far apart, once we all get down to the real nitty gritty and just own up to the fact that the Church has already used an existentialistic perspective in Her natural law interpretation insofar as NFP is concerned.

This is why James suggests

quote:

The principle objection is that the Church’s position does not appear consistent. If each and every conjugal act has to be open to procreation, how can the Church approve of exercising the conjugal act and deliberately avoiding conception, which is what happens in natural family planning?

So, no, it appears that the thwarting of the merely biologically procreative dimension of the conjugal act is NOT the kind of analysis acceptable to anyone on either side of the debate (to answer James' question more directly, using YOUR logic).

See what I mean?

momZ

Jill

November 03, 2002, 03:38 PM

NF,
This seems very inconsistent to me. Especially from the perspective of a question I asked a while back. Which was: Does the Church allow a man to bring his wife to orgasm if he finished his end of the conjugal act prior to her climax? Obviously if this is allowable, then pleasure apart from the procreative act is permitted as is seen in NFP. Furthermore a type of masturbation appears to be sanctioned in this instance. The difference from withdrawl I see not. It appears to me that the Church is saying a man can do anything with his reproductive organs prior to orgasm (including anal sex), as long as ejaculation occurs unimpeded in his wife's vagina. Does this sound like logical, healthy sexual moral theory to you? I have to say it does not to me. More thoughtful criterion needs to be provided from your end of the debate.

N.F.

November 03, 2002, 03:44 PM

not just a question of logic or reason
As far as merely relying on MY logic or anyone else's, I already made this concession at the outset: In principle, I would not even be debating such issues as essentialistic versus existentialistic thrusts because a Church teaching, such as that on contraception, does NOT depend for its authority on the reasoning advanced in its support.

Historical consciousness cuts both ways. One day our present Pope's positions on ABC might be viewed as prophetic statements and our evolving understanding of the natural law may better reveal that which presently escapes our reasoning faculty. Should not, therefore, the presumption be given to the Magisterium? Can one reason oneself to the Mysteries of our faith or, rather, must assent be given?

N.F.

Momz
Member

November 03, 2002, 04:44 PM

Can one reason oneself to the Mysteries of our faith or, rather, must assent be given?

I don't want to get off-topic but you do understand that the natural law is supposed to be accessible to human reason independent of Divine Revelation? Assent to the central Christian Mysteries, such as articulated in the Creed or Kerygma, though in no way unreasonable itself, is of a different order. Maybe someone else could better word this distinction, but my main point is that the Church teaches that human reason can access the natural law and that is just what some of us are doing, reasoning about the natural law.

momZ

James
Member

November 03, 2002, 09:31 PM

NF, So your position here is that Church teaching should not appeal to reason because we as laity must submit to the hierarchy. Certainly if this were taught as infallible that might possibly be a good arguement, but it is not. Our Lord calls us to a higher calling toward the marriage of faith and reason. Every other Church teaching appeals to this, except for the teaching on birth control. Regards-

N.F.

November 04, 2002, 01:49 AM

a serious misuse of probabilism
James wrote: Can anyone show that the Church’s position is not really inconsistent? Can anyone show that NFP does not introduce a probablism of its own?

Now, answer my questions. Can anyone really show that all forms of ABC are not abortifacient? that they never prevent implantation of a zygote?

Then, even if NFP has its own probabilism, it is of an entirely different nature.

First, there can be no invoking of proportionalism or of double effect when we are choosing between matters of life and death, as we are if oral contraceptives don't work 100% of the time in a nonabortifacient manner. Next, there can be no invocation of probabilism when one is risking harm to a third party. Next, NEVER is it licit to employ the principle of probabilism to a dubium facti, such as the abortifaciency of oral contraceptives. It is available only for use in a dubium juris, such as whether the procreative and unitive dimensions must be preserved in each act. This is elemental.

Finally, as with proportionalism, there can be no invocation of probabilism when the risk of taking a life is present.

In conclusion, there is no misuse of probabilism as involved in NFP, to the extent you are correct about there being such an element in the first place, which you haven't clearly set forth; there is no invocation of probabilism re: ABC, for a number of reasons I have set forth.

Such a facile (mis)application of probabilism is troubling in a matter so very grave.

Earnestly,
N.F.

N.F.

November 04, 2002, 01:59 AM

sacred human life

quote:
It is in that quote that Bernard Haring believes Paul VI attempted to best anticipate and answer our question. It is as if the Pope is suggesting (and this is a highly nuanced inference) that we have limited dominion in medicine, in general, but that we have no dominion regarding our generative faculties, in particular, because we are dealing with sacred human life, itself.

Haring thus comments: Here again we encounter unequal members in the comparison: the absolute sacredness of biological laws and rhythms is compared and equated with the sacredness of human life. The difference is as great as between "no dominion" and "limited dominion."

He then counters: Biological functions, including the human sperm and ovule, are not human life nor the inception of human life.

I read this in your archives. I hope it is clear that, because of the possible abortifacient nature of ALL oral contraceptives, Haring's logic is misapplied.

N.F.

Editor
Member

November 04, 2002, 08:46 AM

N.F., see the web page on the pill and abortions on the home web site. You'll see that there are all sorts of pills that work in different ways, and that it's not easy in the best of circumstances to say when/if abortions actually occur.

Let us remember again that the pill is not the only form of artificial contraception. Those who are not comfortable with this method because of the *possible* abortificent consequences have other options, which i trust we all know about and so won't go on to describe.

Editor
Member

November 04, 2002, 09:01 AM

Jill, you bring up some good issues which didn't really get much discussion in the older forum since I closed it shortly after your post there.

I think you're right in stressing that a very strict emphasis on sexual morality referenced to the objective structure of the act ends up holding that what's truly primary is ejaculation by a penis into a vagina with no artificial barriers constraining a possible union of sperm and egg. That's obviously such a ridiculously reductionistic approach as to be unworthy of much consideration, and we should note that the magisterium isn't really that narrow. But the emphasis on objective structure does tend to discourage much consideration being given to the kinds of acts permissible in "foreplay," and even what kinds of relational dynamics are appropriate and inappropriate.

For example, just because an NFP couple is in the infertile period of the month and one of the partners desires sex, is the other (the wife, say) required to consent to this? This is hardly a theoretical example, as our own marital experience was once characterized by many such stressful times. It's easy to understand, now, why that was so. If the monthly cycle is viewed to be the primary regulator of sexual activity, then fertile days mean "No to sex" and infertile days mean "Yes to sex." It's not like we didn't know that other factors like tiredness, mood, emotional intimacy, etc. weren't also important--only that they were secondary considerations. Our view now is that it's much more important that these experiential considerations be in place for determining whether or not we have sex. If one of us really wants to and the other really doesn't, then we don't, and there's no longer a sense of feeling like we ought to do so anyway or else miss out on one of the "Yes days."

N.F.

November 04, 2002, 04:39 PM

James wrote: NF, So your position here is that Church teaching should not appeal to reason because we as laity must submit to the hierarchy. Certainly if this were taught as infallible that might possibly be a good arguement, but it is not.

Sorry, James, but it is you who are in error.

A pronouncement of the authentic Magisterium requires full and loyal assent-internal and not merely external-in proportion to the importance of the Authority that issues it (in this case the Supreme Pontiff), and the matter with which it deals (in the present case a matter of the greatest importance, treating as it does of the vexed question of the regulation of birth). This decision binds the consciences of all without any ambiguity. In particular, it can and must be said that the authentic pronouncement contained in the Encyclical Humanae vitae excludes the possibility of a probable opinion, valid on the moral plane, opposed to this teaching.

Your distinctions between fallible and infallible are not sufficiently nuanced. That distinction, alone, does not provide for the possibility of dissent. Or has the Pope not made this clear in Veritatis Splendor?

N.F.

James
Member

November 04, 2002, 05:41 PM

No, NF, I do not believe that this is the crux of the issue with VS. The imparitive voice of conscience is the issue, and the Pope tells us that we all have it apart from the teaching powers of Mother Church. This is why it is possible for people of other faiths to still receive salvation. Furthermore, if the birth control teaching must be assented to, then so must things such as the Pope's assertions on the death penalty. We are continuously told by conservatives that this teaching is not set in stone, but for some reason the teaching on birth control is. This makes little sense, since they both hold a similar level of authority. No, it is a flawed premise that suggests that in each and every advisory position, the Magesterium and its conclusions are never fallible. If this were true then our faith and understanding could never grow and develop. But even if we could say this, the more important fact of the matter is that there has never been a noncoerced statement of consensus declared from the Council of Bishops regarding Humanae Vitae, which would be required in order for this teaching to hold the requirement for assent you claim it holds. Now, of course we are all here in this forum because the teaching has the authority with it that requires respect and deep meditation on the matter. Certainly noone here is arguing otherwise.

N.F.

November 04, 2002, 05:58 PM

James wrote: No, it is a flawed premise that suggests that in each and every advisory position, the Magesterium and its conclusions are never fallible. If this were true then our faith and understanding could never grow and develop.

Of course, James, there are many things in Catholic life that can be corrected and changed, many doctrines that can be more profoundly studied, integrated, and expressed in more intelligible terms, many regulations that can be simplified and better adapted to the needs of our time.

But there are two things especially which cannot be made subjects of discussion: the truths of faith that have been authoritatively confirmed by tradition and by the magisterium of the Church, and the constitutional laws of the Church requiring obedience to the pastoral government which Christ established and which the Church has wisely developed and extended in the various members of the mystical and visible body of the Church for the guidance and strengthening of the multiform structures of the People of God.

Therefore:

Renewal, yes-arbitrary change, no.

The ever-new and living history of the Church, yes; a historicism which dissolves adherence to traditional dogma, no.

Integration of theology according to the teaching of the Council, yes; a theology conformed to free subjective theories often derived from hostile forces, no.

A Church open to ecumenical charity, responsible dialogue and the acknowledgment of Christian values among our separated brethren, yes;-an irenicism which renounces the truths of faith or which tends to conform to certain negative principles that have favored the separation of so many Christian brethren from the Catholic communion no.

Religious freedom for all within the framework of civil society, yes, as well as personal adherence to religion according to the considered decision of one's own conscience, yes; freedom of conscience as the criterion of religious truths without support from the authenticity of a serious and authorized teaching, no.

The continuity of Christ in His vicars is primarily intended as the primary informant and corrective of the consciences of the faithful.

Conscience is not the teacher of morality but the guide of personal choice, and not infrequently conscience may be its own accomplice rather than its guide. The criterion of a correct moral conscience is outside and superior to itself, namely, the moral law of God.

This maybe known 1) by reason alone to some extent, 2) by reason and revelation, or 3) by a fallible reason confirmed into certitude by revelation. This certitude Catholics may have by the "teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law" (Gaudium et ses, 51). To admit that "conscience is always binding" is not to say that a man's judgment and choice of action are invested with objective moral rectitude. The objectively erroneous conscience firm in its personal sense of moral correctness may excuse from the gravity of moral culpability. But religious and civil authorities may and do contravene objectively erroneous consciences, such as dissent from Humanae vitae.

N.F.

James Member	November 04, 2002, 09:05 PM
All in all then it appears we agree.

Editor Member	November 05, 2002, 10:51 AM
Yes, N.F., your remarks on conscience and its relation to Church teaching was very good. That doesn't address the issues concerning the teaching on birth control, but it points up the duties of Catholics toward the teaching. Thanks for persevering in the discussion.

N.F.

November 05, 2002, 01:03 PM

JPII says your opposition is neither legit nor Spirit-inspired
Perhaps it is not so much that neither you nor James get my point but that you miss JPII's point in Veritatis Splendor:

quote:
Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts.

VERITATIS SPLENDORPOPE JOHN PAUL II
ADDRESSED BY THE
SUPREME PONTIFF
TO ALL THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
REGARDING CERTAIN
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF THE
CHURCH'S MORAL TEACHING

Dissent from Humanae vitae is not allowed. Why do you suspect our pulipits and university theology faculties have been quiet for decades on these matters? Because, after an initial outbreak of dissent, our pastors and theologians, for the most part, must have humbly recognized their error. JPII, for his part, has reinforced Humanae vitae as vigoruusly as possible.

What, then, is your interpretation of Veritatis Splendor?

N.F.