What is the marital act?

I posted this on a forum today. I didn't want to lose it and it said what I wanted to say. So here it is:

A contraceptive act is not a marital act. That is the point. Let's say we have a couple who was objectively infertile (let's say wife is post ovulation for the month.) Said couple engages in an act using their sexual organs. (For the sake of argument the act is either vaginal intercourse with a condom or an act of oral copulation to male orgasm.) The point is the act itself is not the marital act!

It doesn't matter if the end result was a baby or not. It matters that the act itself was not the marital act. The point the Church is trying to make is that contraception changes marriage! These couples are seldom, sometimes never engaging in the marital act! The marital act is a procreative, unitive act. It is on this foundation that the Church condemns all forms of contraception (including oral sex to male orgasm,) all forms of IVF, and all homosexual acts. They are not the marital act. Further, it even shows why fornication and adultery are condemned. They are also not the marital act since they lack marriage!

If the 20th century showed us nothing else it showed us that having "fake" sexual activity makes for really bad bonding. Couples who engage in authentic marital acts each and every time have a much higher tendancy to stay married.

As has been said by people smarter than I. The biggest error in this debate is by starting wih the result: children, and working backwards. We must begin at the foundation of society: marriage. As we know the original family is a marriage.

Contraceptive Thinking Takes Over.

I have often said that contraception is a mental mindset first. I am starting to notice how very true that is. Because of the recent election and a proposition in a neighboring state, US laws about sexuality and life are being examined, again, by many of my non-Catholic friends. I am honored that they come to me seeking a true understanding of my point of view and not just to bash. But then I have some pretty great friends.

What I have noticed is that any topic about men and women, sexuality, life and death, eventually becomes a topic about contraception for me. This topic was my catalyst to finally "get it." All-male priesthood? I can define it and defend it using contraception as a starting point. So called "gay marriage?" Same thing. Abortion? There's absolutely no leap there...contraception leads to abortion. I have proven that to my friends who are ardent contraception supporters. They "see my point, but personally wouldn't go there." I believe them, because they haven't, but it doesn't change the fact.

Contraception was the next big stone to fall after the reformation of the 1500s. Until 1930 Christians were united on it. Contraception was known by all Christians as against God's will. That was less than 100 years ago. One-hundred years is a very short time in all of history. This HUGE chasm happened in 100 short years! This thinking change that 'what was once evil is now good' happened during my own grand-parents lifetimes. The generation right before them were the ones who were having babies. My great-grandparents, people I've met, lived before contraception was considered good.

So what really happened to make this thinking take over? I have some ideas, but I'm not sure I am willing to definitively state them as fact. They are working theories. The first and foremost is the change in believing that having children is a privilege to the belief that having children is a right. Because the converse is also true, that thinking NOT having children was a privilege before to thinking that NOT having children was a right. That is where contraception made its early inroads. The targets of the first contraception clinics were the poor, the under-privileged. The message drummed into their heads was that fewer children meant more prosperity. The fact that a simple reading of world history proves that untrue did not sway the march.

What the original contraceptionists sought was a reduction in the poor by merely "un-breeding" them out of existence. That is still the stance. It is still touted that "the poor woman doesn't need another baby." I mean that statement alone just confuses me. Is it like she is going out and aquiring another handbag and heels? I mean is the baby her possession? It seems to be that many think so. Because to view something as a "right" means you hold it as something you possess. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. No matter what ever happens to me I possess those rights. Even if someone seeks to remove them, they can't. I own them just because I exist.

But possessing a person is not a right. Throughout our sad history that has been tested again and again. It continues today with the unborn. I just can't wrap my mind around it today, although years ago I thought I had. I can't even get this theory to its logical end because it is really a sad place to visit. It is the idea that sex doesn't, (or shouldn't,) make babies. How utterly sad.

Against the Beginning

So on some level the title of my blog might seem limiting. Every post in some way will relate to contraception, but not just in the strictest sense of the word. What I have found is that I often had what is known as a "contraceptive mentality." I viewed many things "against life" or "against the beginning." I am trying to say in my usual roundabout way, is that the topic of contraception encapsulates my struggle.

I looked at the world with an attitude that I was in charge, that I was the beginning, that I had control. Certainly I had some control but not the right kind of control. I tried to control my will but not my behavior. I tried to change my reality but not my actions which led to it.

Being against the beginning is something we have to choose first and act on second. It requires premeditation. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that it requires the same amount of planning or consent as say murder or some other violent crime. But it does require some forethought. We must know that the outcome of a certain behavior is not desired if we are doing anything about it. I think for me contraception has something to do with "getting caught."

I said before that I wanted to change the circumstances of my surroundings rather my behavior itself. We all did it at one time or another. We all wished that that stupid 6th grade book report would just write itself. Who of us who watch our weight hasn't reached for another slice of pumpkin pie vowing that we will exercise more to burn those few extra calories?...Only to then say, "next week."

None of us can say that we have been completely unattached to consequences. But I think part of the thinking error of contraception is that consequences are always a bad thing. They aren't always bad! I mean if my house hadn't been broken into I never would have met my husband...I know, I know, that sounds really bad! He wasn't the intruder, but I met him as a direct result of a string of consequences from the break-in.

Babies are a consequence of sex, yes, I will grant that. But not having babies is also a consequence of sex. Think of the infertile. There is nothing that drives an infertile couple further up a tree than two random idiotic teenagers making a baby on the first "try." In fact, based on ovulation of about 1/30th of a month, the chances are higher that it does not result in a baby!

But sex still makes babies. That is what is designed to do on its most basic level. Everything else is gravy. Everything else is a perk. To be against the foundation is to be against the mashed potatoes. To be against the beginning made my own life just a big, messy puddle of gravy.

I think I will finish this post if only to limit the number of Thanksgiving metaphors.

What are we afraid of?

Most people would argue that contraception is rational. That it is reasonable to contracept. On some level that is correct. Since only humans are rational and reasonable and only humans contracept, then the logic does follow. But why do we contracept? Contraception is really all about fear. We contracept because we have misused our reason and applied it while rooted in fear.

Animals don't contracept. Animals don't fear childbirth. Why? Because there is actually nothing inherently fearful in bringing about new life. Animals live by instinct and learned behavior. They are not rational. They don't reason out what the caused that twig to snap. They look up in fear and wait until the moment passes or the threat appears. They don't send out the deer network to say, "false alarm. It was a tree falling." That requires reason.

We fear childbirth because we can anticipate pain. Animals don't anticipate like humans. They have instincts and they learn from past experience. They do not, however, associate sex with later childbirth. It is because we know that sex makes babies that we contracept. It is because we are rational and can draw conclusions that we contracept.

But then why do I make the bold assertion that contraception is all about fear? Simply put, because animals don't contracept. They do not fear new life. Because there is nothing inherent to fear in new life! There is no real threat. The rabbit buck doesn't say, "How I am going to work hard enough to feed all these mouths?" The rabbit doe doesn't say, "But all these bunnies need a good quality education." They just do what they do. Then Nature provides.

I mean if it were really necessary to contracept then bunnies would be first in line! The does ovulate every time they have sex. The life expectancy of a baby bunny is fairly short. And they are the only ones who can be rightly accused of over-population! (Of course they have to populate so much because they are prey to so many animals. That is why they ovulate every time they have sex.)

Sex makes babies. Babies are a good thing. Without babies we are done...right now. One generation and we are gone. Rational thought says, "grow, expand." Fear says "retreat." Contraception is about fear, not reason. Truly, contraception is completely irrational.

Contraception in a "Birth Control" World

So I like words. I like when we can string words together and make terms we can all understand. I like terms like 'Natural Family Planning.' I like the term 'marital act.' Though both of those get people looking at me funny. Plus there are many people who will always read 'marital' as 'martial' and wonder what the military has to do with making love.

One term that I do not use often is the term 'Birth Control.' Why don't I like the term? Gee, let me count the ways. Wait, let's not and remain charitable instead. Suffice to say I don't support the group who coined the term and it is not a clear or precise term. 'Birth Control' runs the gamut in definition. Contraception is obviously birth control, but then Natural Family Planning is too. Abstinence and abortion are both forms of birth control. Actually even being post-menopausal or pregnant can be termed as forms of birth control. It seems that the only thing not considered birth control by such loose definitions is when a baby is being born. But isn't there an old joke about not asking a woman if she is pregnant unless you actually see a baby coming out of her? I forget which comedian tells it though.

So by formal definition, contraception is a more precise term. If I have to use the other I might use the term 'Birth Regulation' instead. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: "With this so-called birth control there is very little birth and almost no control."

Contraception refers to an act done within the context of a sexual act. These acts include using contraceptive devices or practices (e.g. condoms; hormonal pills, rings, injections, or patches; IUDs; oral, rectal, and manual acts that mimic intercourse, yet do not achieve it; and an important note: withdrawl falls in this category.) There is nothing natural about withdrawl and it is in fact the original contraception. To practice contraception one must be engaging in a sexual act. To practice "birth control" one must only need to be breathing.

So if you are used to using those two terms interchangeably, please get un-used to it. 'Contraception' is a precise term while 'Birth Control' is a sloppy one. When a person uses as many words as I do, one tends to get precise before one runs out of air.

Contracepter, Contraceptor, Contraceptionist?

I like words. I mean I really like words. In fact, I like words so much that I tend to use them non-stop. In other words, I am a motor-mouth, a chatterbox, verbose, and generally just long-winded. The great compliment that I have been given by friends who put up with all my talking is this. They say that I only talk when I actually have something important to say. I have very generous and charitable friends.

I also like words that are well defined. It seems that the best communication between people must begin on the same page. We must first seek to understand the other's language before we can really communicate. By understanding another we can then be understood. In the words of St. Francis, "Seek not so much to be understood, but to understand."

When a concept exists that is difficult to explain we employ terms to define it. When a term falls short we may even seek to create a new term, in a way to 'conceive' a new word. To conceive is to bring forth anew. Conception can be an idea, thought, or opinion. But most importantly it can be to begin an entirely new life.

So, by definition, contraception means- "against the beginning." My primary question is, 'what is the name of a person who practices contraception?' Here is the crux of this post. In my journey out of a contraceptive mentality I was digging out of a very big hole. I was a contracepter, or maybe a contraceptor, or was a I contraceptionist? Anyway, there isn't a term so I must coin my own to entitle this blog.

My purpose in blogging is to share my journey. I do not come to condemn. Some of my best friends are contracepters and they are still just plain ole' good people. I don't get to decide who goes to heaven or hell...that is not my job...it's God's job. In fact, if I ever step out of my role as a created being and attempt to occupy the job of The Creator, I put my own soul in jeopardy. I would like to avoid that fate if at all possible. Heaven just sounds too great to pass up.

So I am coining the term 'Contracepter' to describe this little tiny side of my life. What I found was that it actually turned out to be one of the single most defining aspects of my humanity. So here is my journey: Conceive of it what you will.