Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Humanae Vitae and True Sexual Freedom — Part 6 of 6 [Open]
CatholicExchange.com ^ | August 5, 2008 | Christopher West

Posted on 08/09/2008 10:29:26 AM PDT by Salvation

 

Humanae Vitae and True Sexual Freedom — Part 6 of 6

August 5th, 2008 by Christopher West

This column concludes my series of reflections on Pope Paul VI’s document Humanae Vitae, which we have been reviewing in light of its fortieth anniversary [Part one, Part two, Part three, Part four, Part five]. In the last installment we examined the difference between rendering sex sterile with contraception and choosing to abstain from intercourse during the fertile time. If one can see the difference between telling a lie and remaining silent, one can tell the difference between contraception and periodic abstinence.

One of the main objections to Humanae Vitae is that following its teaching (that is, practicing abstinence when avoiding pregnancy) impedes couples from expressing their love for one another. But of what “love” are we speaking: authentic conjugal love that images God, or its perennial counterfeit — lust?

God is the one who united marital love and procreation. Therefore, since God cannot contradict himself, as Vatican II taught, a “true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to the fostering of authentic conjugal love” (Gaudium et Spes 51). It may well be difficult to follow the teaching of Humanae Vitae, but it could never be a contradiction of love.

Following the Church’s teaching is difficult because of the internal battle we all experience between love and lust. Lust impels us, and impels us very powerfully, towards sexual intercourse. But if sexual intimacy results from nothing more than lust, it’s not love. On the contrary, it’s a negation of love. Love is being ready to sacrifice oneself entirely for the good of the beloved, and for the good of the offspring that might result. Lust seeks the pleasure and sensation of the sexual act, but without the sincere gift of oneself.

nuzzle.jpgIf one is unprepared to receive a child, the only responsible choice is to abstain from that act that leads to a child. And as any married couple knows, abstaining from sex can be a profound act of love. In fact, there are many occasions in married life when a couple might want to engage in sexual intercourse, but have a serious reason to abstain. Maybe one of the spouses is sick. Maybe it’s after childbirth. Maybe they’re at the in-laws and there are thin walls. If a couple can’t abstain in these situations, their love is actually called into question. It’s the same thing with needing to avoid a pregnancy. If the couple cannot abstain, their love is called into question.

What purpose does contraception really serve anyway? This might sound odd at first, but let it sink in. Contraception was not invented to prevent pregnancy. We already had a 100% safe, 100% reliable way of doing that — abstinence. In the final analysis, contraception serves one purpose: to spare us the difficulty we experience when confronted with the choice of abstinence. When all the smoke is cleared, contraception was invented because of our lack of self-control; in other words, contraception was invented to serve the indulgence of lust.

Why do we spay or neuter our dogs and cats? Why don’t we just ask them to abstain? If we spay and neuter ourselves with contraception, we’re reducing the “great mystery” of the one flesh union to the level of Fido and Fidette in heat. What distinguished us from the animals in the first place? Freedom! God gave us freedom as the capacity to love. Contraception negates this freedom. It says, “I can’t abstain.” Hence, contracepted intercourse not only attacks the procreative meaning of sex, as John Paul II observed, “it also ceases to be an act of love” (TOB 123:6).

If you can’t say no to sex, what does your “yes” mean? Only the person who is free with the freedom for which Christ set us free (see Gal 5:1) is capable of authentic love. Authentic love, as the Catechism observes, requires “an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy” (CCC 2339).

This is what is at stake in the prophetic teaching of Humanae Vitae: man’s true peace and happiness. I’m convinced that the teaching of Humanae Vitae — which is still being rejected in the name of sexual “liberation” — will one day be vindicated as the only path to authentic sexual freedom: the freedom to love.

 

[Editor’s note: Please enjoy regular features from this and other enlightening authors discussing Catholic teaching on sexuality in CE’s Theology of the Body channel.]

This column first appeared as part of Christopher West’s Body Language series for the Catholic press (www.christopherwest.com).

Christopher West is a fellow of the Theology of the Body Institute. His books and tapes on the “theology of the body” are available from our online store.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; contraception
Open thread for your information and discussion.

Last in a series on contraception

1 posted on 08/09/2008 10:29:26 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Humanae Vitae and True Sexual Freedom — Part 6 of 6 [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Sex Speaks: True and False Prophets — Part 4 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and the Language of the Body — Part 3 of 6 [Open]
Does Contraception Foster Love? — Part 2 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and Cultural Chaos — Part 1 of 6 [Open]
2 posted on 08/09/2008 10:31:50 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

3 posted on 08/09/2008 10:33:30 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Priests still suffering from effects of Humanae Vitae dissenters, Vatican cardinal says (Must read!)
"Provoking reflection" (Contrasting views on Humanae Vitae)
Humanae Vitae The Year of the Peirasmòs - 1968
Catholics to Pope: Lift the Birth Control Ban

[OPEN] The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
Catholic Clergy Challenge Colleagues to Reacquaint Themselves and Their People with Humanae Vitae
White House proposes wide "conscience clause" on abortion, contraception
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE" [Catholic Caucus]
“A degrading poison that withers life”
Australia Study: 70 Percent of Women Seeking Abortions Used Contraception

[Fr. Thomas Euteneuer] In Persona Christi: The Priest and Contraception

A Challenging Truth, Part Two: The Day the Birth Control Died
A Challenging Truth, Part One: How Birth Control Works
Ten Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in 2008
The concept of the "intrinsically evil"
Pope Tells Pharmacists Not to Dispense Drugs With 'Immoral Purposes'

Massive Study Finds the Pill Significantly Increases Cancer Risk if Used more than Eight Years
Birth Control Pill Creates Blood Clot Causing Death of Irish Woman
Seminarians Bring Church’s Teaching on Contraception, Sexuality to YouTube
Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies
History of Catholic teaching on Contraception

Pope: Legislation "Supporting Contraception and Abortion is Threatening the Future of Peoples"
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
On Fox News Fearless HLI Priest Takes on Sean Hannity (may be indebted for saving his soul)
VIDEO - SEAN HANNITY vs REV. THOMAS EUTENEUER (must see!)
The Early Church Fathers on Contraception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

Pope on divine love vs. erotic love
Conjugal Love and Procreation: God's Design
Being fruitful [Evangelicals and contraception]

4 posted on 08/09/2008 10:34:43 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

bump for later


5 posted on 08/09/2008 11:48:35 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen (All things shall be well; You shall see for yourself that all manner of things shall be well)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

bump for later


6 posted on 08/09/2008 11:48:37 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen (All things shall be well; You shall see for yourself that all manner of things shall be well)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Many good points here.


7 posted on 08/09/2008 12:27:42 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("And the rum is for all your good vices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Apparently a lot of good points that the contracepting secular public do not want to discuss. Hmmmm.


8 posted on 08/09/2008 1:12:28 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I think that’s because this information addresses objective reality, while people generally live by subjective interpretation of reality.


9 posted on 08/09/2008 2:50:06 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("And the rum is for all your good vices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
These arguments make a certain amount of sense when specifically to artificial contraception, which is used deliberately for the purpose of preventing conception. But they don't really address the idea that all non-procreative erotic acts are wrong, regardless of their purpose.

For example, if a person engages in erotic activity with a person of the same sex, they usually aren't doing it deliberately to avoid conception that would otherwise be a possibility, but simply because they are attracted to that person and want to be intimate with him/her. The fact that non-procreative nature of the activity is incidental. Likewise heterosexual who engage in non-procreative erotic activity (oral sex, etc.) simply for the sake of pleasure and variety. The article doesn't really address this; it only go so far as to argue that it's wrong to use artifial means to avoid the procreative potential inherit in vaginal sex.
10 posted on 08/09/2008 6:17:58 PM PDT by CautiouslyHopeful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

Part 1 addressed it>

**What about homosexuality? Our culture is impotent to resist the “gay agenda” because we have already accepted its basic premise with contraception — the reduction of sex to the exchange of pleasure. When openness to life is no longer an intrinsic part of the sexual equation, why does sexual behavior have to be with the opposite sex?**


11 posted on 08/09/2008 8:13:13 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Homosexuality is a fruit of Oral Contraception turning Marital Sex into Recreational sex and self satisfaction helping to Break Down the Concept of Marriage with the Ultimate form of recreational sex Homosexuality.!!Then Of Course total selfishness Homosexual Marriage!

That was how the Natural order is out of Kilter today!


12 posted on 08/10/2008 4:03:15 AM PDT by philly-d-kidder (Kuwait where the Temperature has been above 100 F since Easter Sunday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Yes, but his arguments above only address contraception as a deliberate attempt to avoid conception. They do not themselves address sexual activity that is only incidentally non-procreative. The argument that acceptance of contraception is a problem because it will lead to acceptance of homosexual activity is only relevant if we assume there is something wrong with homosexual activity. But his arguments do not show that there is something wrong with homosexual activity or anything else (so-called premarital sex, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, promiscuity and all that stuff), only that there is something wrong with contraception because is deliberately "frustrates the sexual act."

And for that matter, the "sexual act," in this case, seems to be defined as vaginal sex, specifically. For instance, his argument that extra-marital sex, with or without procreation, leads to unwanted pregnancies only makes sense when that extra-marital sex is vaginal penetration. What if it's mutual masturbation? Then there's no risk of unwanted pregnancy and no need for contraception.

And if one defines "sex" to mean "coitus," one could argue that such things as mutual masturbation, oral sex, etc, don't constitute "real sex" but only erotic play. For example, a romantic kiss is erotic, but no one seriously argues that it has to end with "openness to procreation" (i.e. the depositing of semen in the uterus) because it's not "real sex." Theoretically, you could allow most of these things simply by narrowing the definition of "sex".

Of course, the real issues with discarding the old procreative teleology of sex in favor of one that allows pleasure and intimacy without deliberate "procreative finality" are the societal effects it has. By only allowing most erotic activity to take place within marriage and open to procreation, society is able to motivate people to form stable marriages and bear children. This is particularly important now that these things are no longer and economic asset, and people no longer live in extended families. Without these restrictions, how else do you motivate people to marry and procreate?
13 posted on 08/10/2008 3:35:03 PM PDT by CautiouslyHopeful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

**Yes, but his arguments above only address contraception as a deliberate attempt to avoid conception. **

Either the marital act is to procreate or (when contraceptiing) it is not. No gray area here.


14 posted on 08/11/2008 8:58:23 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Depends what he means by “the marital act.” Does all erotic activity constitute “the marital act”? There are many different kinds of “sexual” acts that are non-procreative without artificial contraception. He doesn’t address why these are forbidden.


15 posted on 08/12/2008 3:03:28 AM PDT by CautiouslyHopeful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson