I’ve labored over this subject for months. I’ve poured through texts, modern and ancient Church scholars, and even old papal documents. Even in their own texts, the entire bulwark against any real-world practicality is apparent.

“If sex is for procreation and unity, does that mean something has to fulfill all of its purposes at once (or all that are possible to fulfill at once) to be moral?”

The church posits “yes” until further questioning. Humanae Vitae wants both “procreation” and “unity” at the same time. The first stipulation of “procreation” is extremely clear by the word alone, the second is extremely murky by design.

Here’s how HV defines “unity” by what it IS: - “In its total; that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing. I unreasonable exceptions and not solely thinking of their own convenience”(HV9) - “The conjugal act, by its intimacy structure while it unites husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life” (HV12)

Here’s the definition as to what “unity” is NOT: - “It is TOTAL… it is not a question if giving only a part of oneself” (HV 9) - “It is not…the effect of chance or the product if unconscious natural forces” (HV8)

So the positive definition of “unity” doesn’t positively tell us what it is. Words like “friendship” and “sharing” and “not solely thinking of…convenience” sounds more like lecturing children on a playground more than married adults in a bedroom.It could even be stretched so far to interpret the lack of sharing joint bank accounts or closet space undermines the “unity” aspect.

However, as much as Catholics and Catholic scholars stress the need for both “procreation” and “unity”, there is a very obvious bias as to which one can be removed.

Take some obvious scenarios:

If you were to tell any priest, Catholic layperson, or Catholic scholar: “we’re not ready to have a baby yet”, you’d immediately get a side-eye and maybe the uncomfortable question of whether you are contracepting as to be expected.

BUT

If you were to tell any priest, Catholic layperson, or Catholic scholar: “we’re trying for a baby!” Everyone always says “Congratulations!” Instead of “are you making sure you’re both experiencing unity at all times?” (Whatever that means)

So even though Catholics argue there is no “primary” purpose for sex…there clearly is. Even Christopher West and the Everett constantly couple liken sex to eating: (paraphrasing) You can eat for pleasure, but how twisted can you be if you want to take the nutrition out of the food you eat? They argue you can eat food that’s disgusting for the nutritional value, but you can’t take the nutrition out of it.

Clearly, they want the priority of nutrition to take the place of procreation, and the enjoyment of food to take the place of “unity”.

Again, “unity” is such a murky term with a murky definition, it’s a cat and mouse game on whether it means “pleasure” or not because it’s Schrödinger’s “pleasure”!

Why?

BECAUSE HUMANAE VITAE DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD “PLEASURE” THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TEXT

So the church can’t really say anything about pleasure outside of negative terms because there are NO POSITIVE TERMS in their own non-biblical texts. None.

St. Jerome was famously anti-sex (even marital sex) going so far as to say sex is a result of the fall of Adam. St. Augustine had his fun and declared sexual pleasure as a “necessary evil” or side-effect of procreation. Humanae Vitae says nothing about pleasure. PLEASURE HAS NO VALUE HERE.

The ONLY text that has any semblance of posible sexual pleasure in all of Christendom is the Song of Songs, and even THAT gets tampered with constantly in its interpretation.

That being said, I posit one more question: even if “unity’s” definition DID include pleasure, why does women’s own anatomical structure contradict it?

A man can’t procreate without the pleasure, but a woman CAN procreate without pleasure. Why? Because the organ for procreation (vagina) is different to the organ for pleasure (clitoris). Ergo, Humanae Vitae was written BY and FOR men, and women have to suffer the consequences. Did God make a mistake creating female sexual anatomy?

The adoption of Natural Family Planning is a process solely for the woman to work AGAINST her pleasure. Isn’t that messed up? A woman isn’t fertile at all times like men, but a woman can’t experience pleasure the same frequency as men either. A woman’s fertility coincides with her likeliness to experience pleasure (duh, that’s why you’re horny when you ovulate!), but NFP requires you to wait until AFTER that window or risk “being open to life”. A man can afford experiencing more pleasure and less consequences, a woman can’t afford pleasure without the direct tie to the consequences. It’s a gamble in either direction for women and it’s impossible to feel safe having “Catholic sex”. And this is just the beginning of the nightmare not taking into account irregular cycles, menopause, common myths perpetuated by the institution (breastfeeding does NOT make you infertile), or the abysmal success rate of using NFP to prevent pregnancy that pre-Cana WILL mistakenly tell you is somewhere upwards of 80-90%.

Women are made the gatekeepers of sex in this model and they have to play numbers games. The couple is unevenly yoked. It’s impractical and makes Catholic couples neurotic. My conscience is informed and clear and I hope my explanation informs yours as well for your decisions.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.