I’m sorry for your struggles. God doesn’t CAUSE you to have problems, nor does He cause any other problems in this world.I sort of see what you’re saying. The sex is “capable of being fertile”. However, that is a HUGE slap in the face to every woman and every man who cannot have a kid. I am highly offended every time someone says “Well Plinko, maybe SOMEDAY with God’s grace, you will have a kid”. No. Just no. That sounds patronizing and makes a mockery out of my issue.
So I have to respectfully disagree that any sex I have is procreative. I am not “capable of being fertile”. The definition doesn’t fit; stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
<<Definition of PROCREATIVEEhhh, Ill ask you the same question.
If I only have sex with my wife when she is veritably infertile, is this act of sex capable of reproducing?
That is your definition.
Yes, but with NFP it’s just ordered for form’s sake. The participants know it’s an empty form. I’m having trouble understanding how performing an act in a certain order, just for the sake of it-when the intent is the opposite, would make the act moral. It doesn’t seem logical.Open to life is a misnomer…it should be ordered to procreation. When the act is engaged in, it needs to be ordered properly. It’s not a percentage game, it’s the way the act is ordered.
And there it is: the act of sex, if completed by reproductively competent people, can result in a kid.That act of sex, if completed in a whole and undeformed, perfect couple, is capable of facilitating conception.
If you use ABC and it is only 85% effective, why do you use it? The point of ABC is to avoid conception, and therefore a pregnancy. If you are using it in hopes of pregnancy, I am confounded by your logic. If you consider yourself open to life, you are sadly mistaken.aBC is not fail proof. The form I’ve used is about 85% effective, give or take. But in any case, abstaining while fertile is less open to life than using a barrier during said time. Maybe throughout the entire menstrual cycle NFP is more “open”, but during the fertile period it is less. Then there is the FAM NFP method. A FAM user would have to be more open to life than a NFP+ abstinence user so in that case it could be argued that it’s more moral, if being open to life is a distinguishing factor.
The problem with condoms and barrier methods is the idea of interfering in the way God created human beings. If the husband uses a condom, or the wife a diaphragm, they are effectively saying that they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their act of complete love and self-giving. It can’;t be complete if anything is held back. Fertility is a part of that.And there it is: the act of sex, if completed by reproductively competent people, can result in a kid.
Here’s how it ties in. If the Catechism says “marriage is unitive AND procreative”, and their definition of “procreative” is bunk, then their definition of marriage and sexuality is bunk. Marriage can be unitive–nobody is arguing that–but a marriage does not need to be procreative. Barrier methods make sense in my mind. Condoms yes. Methods that prevent implanation, no.
I never said that God was the cause; I simply said God is not the solution. I’m not the virgin Mary. I will not have kids and to postulate that an infertile person could is patronizing.I’m sorry for your struggles. God doesn’t CAUSE you to have problems, nor does He cause any other problems in this world.
YOU are not capable of being fertile, but that doesn’t mean the sex isn’t “ordered toward procreation”. You are completing it in a way that could (if fertility was present) lead to conception. You are not doing anything immoral. THAT is the question… the morality of the act, not the fertility of the act.
No, it’s ordered that way because that’s the way sex is ordered to be sacramental. The act is fully intact. It is unitive and procreative. It is not empty. The natural fertility of the act is not the issue. The intent is not the issue as long as the reason is just/serious/grave. The issue is keeping the act as God created it. Marriage is a sacrament. The marital embrace is sacramental. For the same reason I can’t make holy water out of cola, or Eucharist out of rice cakes and lemonade, there are certains forms and orders of sacraments and sacramentals.Yes, but with NFP it’s just ordered for form’s sake. The participants know it’s an empty form. I’m having trouble understanding how performing an act in a certain order, just for the sake of it-when the intent is the opposite, would make the act moral. It doesn’t seem logical.
By taking that pill she has rendered the act sterile by the effect of the pill. NFP doesn’t render the act anything, it either is naturally fertile or is naturally infertile.OK, Ill play along.
Even if a woman is 100%, completely positive she is infertile at the time, the sex is “procreative”, meaning the sex act itself is “capable” or producing a child, even though in reality, it will never do so.
In the morning, a woman takes her pill, and she is 98% certain she is infertile. She has sex, which is capable of producing a child. This is not procreative, even though it can produce a child.
Procreative, by the worlds definition, defines that sex must be capable or reproducing, or capable of procreation. Now, if you want to sell the idea that the first one is procreative, than the second one absolutely, positively is.
The ONLY way it is different, is if you tack on all the further restrictions NOT present in the common definition, only present in the Church.
Can we agree to this?
Here’s another digression that I have with the Church. I think that sex CAN be about the couple and not about a future potential child. Sex CAN be physical and carnal and curl-your-toes amazing. It’s like skydiving. It’s risky and you can be seriously hurt from it (just as with sex you are opening yourself to unwanted pregnancies or STDs). But that’s why you have a parachute, a method that will protect against an unwanted effect of gravity (death). No analogy is perfect and I know mine certainly isn’t, but it makes sense, right? We are higher beings with huge prefrontal cortexes. It doesn’t need to be all about making babies. Just like food doesn’t need to be all about nutrition. Sometimes we want that big cookie cuz it tastes so darn good.The problem with condoms and barrier methods is the idea of interfering in the way God created human beings. If the husband uses a condom, or the wife a diaphragm, they are effectively saying that they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their act of complete love and self-giving. It can’;t be complete if anything is held back. Fertility is a part of that.
Just to play into our game of semantics, using a condom is still morally wrong for an infertile couple. Using an oral contraceptive is still against Church teaching, even for an infertile couple.
The first example is procreative and unitive.OK, Ill play along.
Even if a woman is 100%, completely positive she is infertile at the time, the sex is “procreative”, meaning the sex act itself is “capable” or producing a child, even though in reality, it will never do so.
In the morning, a woman takes her pill, and she is 98% certain she is infertile. She has sex, which is capable of producing a child. This is not procreative, even though it can produce a child.
Procreative, by the worlds definition, defines that sex must be capable or reproducing, or capable of procreation. Now, if you want to sell the idea that the first one is procreative, than the second one absolutely, positively is.
The ONLY way it is different, is if you tack on all the further restrictions NOT present in the common definition, only present in the Church.
Can we agree to this?
The Church doesn’t say that all acts of sex NOT violated by ABC are moral. You are right, if the intent is wrong, it is still lacking the integrity that God created. The idea is that there is not the added and greater wrong of interfering, via ABC.Yes, but with NFP it’s just ordered for form’s sake. The participants know it’s an empty form. I’m having trouble understanding how performing an act in a certain order, just for the sake of it-when the intent is the opposite, would make the act moral. It doesn’t seem logical.
I use it to decrease my chance of becoming pregnant, the same way a person would use NFP. I’m not seeking to sterilize myself or harm myself. NFP is anywhere from 99% effective down to 75% if not used perfectly, you know. It’s off topic, but I have medical problems that make pinning my fertile time difficult. I use the FAM method of NFP as I’m only sure of my cycle post ovulation, thus far. I don’t see any virtue in abstaining for 3/4 of the month.If you use ABC and it is only 85% effective, why do you use it? The point of ABC is to avoid conception, and therefore a pregnancy. If you are using it in hopes of pregnancy, I am confounded by your logic. If you consider yourself open to life, you are sadly mistaken.
Morality is not to be measured merely by its percentage of accuracy or times being open to life. It is about the full nature of each individual act. In using NFP, there are two possibilities: Have sex, or do not have sex. Either way, no moral transgressions have occurred. In using ABC, there is a third act added: The administration of the contraceptive. This act is morally wrong in and of itself.
THe Church does not say that the benefits to sex are not carnal, or that it can’t be curl-your-toes amazing. The Church just tells us that there will be eternal consequences if we mess with what God made in that fundamental way. I disagree completely with your example because I find skydiving for pleasure’s sake to be a self-destructive behavior.Here’s another digression that I have with the Church. I think that sex CAN be about the couple and not about a future potential child. Sex CAN be physical and carnal and curl-your-toes amazing. It’s like skydiving. It’s risky and you can be seriously hurt from it (just as with sex you are opening yourself to unwanted pregnancies or STDs). But that’s why you have a parachute, a method that will protect against an unwanted effect of gravity (death). No analogy is perfect and I know mine certainly isn’t, but it makes sense, right? We are higher beings with huge prefrontal cortexes. It doesn’t need to be all about making babies. Just like food doesn’t need to be all about nutrition. Sometimes we want that big cookie cuz it tastes so darn good.
May I suggest either trying another method, or seeking medical attention to fix those problems… a good specialist would be a reproductive endocrinologist.I use it to decrease my chance of becoming pregnant, the same way a person would use NFP. I’m not seeking to sterilize myself or harm myself. NFP is anywhere from 99% effective down to 75% if not used perfectly, you know. It’s off topic, but I have medical problems that make pinning my fertile time difficult. I use the FAM method of NFP as I’m only sure of my cycle post ovulation, thus far. I don’t see any virtue in abstaining for 3/4 of the month.
So because she’s blocking her ovaries, she’s blocking herself in total? I also block access to my lungs, to my rectum, to my stomach… what makes reproduction so special?The first example is procreative and unitive.
The second example is only procreative, not unitive. She is BLOCKING part of herself from her husband. They are not fully united. She is rendering (causing) herself to be infertile. They are still having procreative sex, yes, because the husband is completing inside the wife in a way that could produce children.
It’s a Sacramental renewal of the Marriage covenant.So because she’s blocking her ovaries, she’s blocking herself in total? I also block access to my lungs, to my rectum, to my stomach… what makes reproduction so special?
If a cure for autoimmune disease is found then the issues I have with my temperature and CM will be fixed. I just feel lucky that I can use NFP part of the time, it is nice. We have no moral issues with barriers so spending tons of money on a specialist isn’t a priority for us right now. On a side note I’m already seeing an endo for my thyroid so I’ll be sure to ask her what she thinks of my case when I see her next.May I suggest either trying another method, or seeking medical attention to fix those problems… a good specialist would be a reproductive endocrinologist.