Culture vs Church:

Observing the Natural Law

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

In this section my understanding of the material is that if you are unable to have a child, yet perform sexual acts, you are essentially sinning. I understand that each time we have intercourse it is for the sole purpose of procreation, but God ultimately decides through "laws of nature" when our bodies' cycles determine we can have a child.

I think the concept of docile bodies is a phenomenon that takes place with marriage. We eagerly are ready to start having sex once we are married, it's no longer a taboo and is almost universally acceptable in our culture to begin procreating once we tie the knot. However, normally the idea is to have sex to feel good. It is understood a honeymoon is about fooling around. We don't have the idea, "Hey we're married, we MUST have a baby 9 months from now, and if not, we're failures." It is becoming more and more common to see people enter wedlock without the intention of having children right away.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

I only see this as interfering with this section:

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

I don't see how this isn't in some way shape or form isn't occurring if religious individuals are in wedlock, but not having children. Unless, the individuals are plain not having sex, I don't see how a married couple can be married for a couple years and not have children. They could plan around the woman's biological clock, but isn't that in essence interfering with the idea that sex is for procreation? Unless there are biological issues preventing the man or woman from having children and being able to transfer their gametes, or sex cells. This is interfering with the Pope's intended message. There is no doubt their is a cultural shift in the US and that we are having children in later stages of our lives so we can focus on education, career, and other goals. There should be more continuity between culture and church.