That does not mean that your marital intercourse lacks the procreative dimension.My husband and I had three children. I am no longer able to have children because my tubes were tied before I became Catholic, so there’s no reason for us to have sex except for pleasure.
Scout :tiphat:
How’s that? I’m certainly not doing it in the hopes of having children.That does not mean that your marital intercourse lacks the procreative dimension.
No properly ordered sex act between married persons is “for pleasure only”. Even though you are subjectively infertile, the marriage act always has both the unitive and procreative objective meaning.
It’s what JPII calls the nuptial meaning of the act. Or, as the Catechism says, the unitive and procreative elements are inherent in the marriage act.How’s that? I’m certainly not doing it in the hopes of having children.
Scout
Why? I’m perfectly happy with the relationship the way it is and have no wish to change it or my views of it.It’s what JPII calls the nuptial meaning of the act. Or, as the Catechism says, the unitive and procreative elements are inherent in the marriage act.
Perhaps some Christopher West books would assist in this concept.
Perhaps a better reading.“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, ** outside of marriage ** is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
I guess it would be fair to say that someone using ABC also falls into the “inherant” meaning as well ?It’s what JPII calls the nuptial meaning of the act. Or, as the Catechism says, the unitive and procreative elements are inherent in the marriage act.
Perhaps some Christopher West books would assist in this concept.
I also disagree with him…I believe you are confusing two different posters. The “dehumanizing” quote you are referencing is from **chevalier **not me.
As a woman, I disagree with you.
I’m sorry…who are you disagreeing with?I also disagree with him…
No, they are deliberately removing the element.I guess it would be fair to say that someone using ABC also falls into the “inherant” meaning as well ?
I didn’t say it was.Citing sources is not a means of cross-referencing.
Then, I suggest you use it as your starting point and read other materials as well that give the in-depth discussion more treatment.Citing For a document that is intended to guide people in their lives, it’s awfully confusing at times.
Because the Church calls us to the **fullness **of Truth, not just partial truth.Why? I’m perfectly happy with the relationship the way it is and have no wish to change it or my views of it.
Scout :tiphat:
I’m in the fullness of the truth.Because the Church calls us to the **fullness **of Truth, not just partial truth.
Since you are now a member of the RCC, and in the fullness of the truth, would you try to persuade others (particularly Catholics) against having their tubes tide?I’m in the fullness of the truth.
Scout
A person abstaining while using NFP is also deliberatly removing the element from said equasion, that being fertile time.No, they are deliberately removing the element.
No. That person is working with God’s plan. Do you think God requires married couples to have realtions every fertile day? No, that would take away our free will and also could take away the unitive aspect of the act. The couple comes together in a unitive expression of their love, and God decides whether or not to create life from the act. Whether or not it is a fertile day is up to God, and he is the only one who really knows for sure whether or not it is a fertile day.A person abstaining while using NFP is also deliberatly removing the element from said equasion, that being fertile time.
Not every day is a fertile day, and couples are not required to have relations every day.Where is the idea that a couple should be able to enjoy each other w/ out having 20 kids running around in all of this? Having 20 kids running around isn’t good for anybody; the kids, the parents, or the state that will subsidizing the food stamps…
But if they’re in their right minds they want to.Not every day is a fertile day, and couples are not required to have relations every day.
I can understand that and as I have said in the past using that exact context putting it up to god you shouldnt need to moniotr your own fertility, its up to God so why monitor…just be unitive and have trust and Faith.No. That person is working with God’s plan. Do you think God requires married couples to have realtions every fertile day? No, that would take away our free will and also could take away the unitive aspect of the act. The couple comes together in a unitive expression of their love, and God decides whether or not to create life from the act. Whether or not it is a fertile day is up to God, and he is the only one who really knows for sure whether or not it is a fertile day.
Check out this thread:But if they’re in their right minds they want to.
OK, condoms and other forms of BC are right out. But I still don’t see how non-vaginal sex is wrong during times of fertility. Like I said, why can’t couples enjoy each other w/ out risking having 20 kids running around…