Do I have this right?

[newbetx]

The sexual act works in a particular way for it to bring forth life.

The focus is really on the procreative, isn’t it?

That and the spiritual life, as well.

 

[SteveGC]

Let me ask you a counter-question. What’s the end goal of female orgasm, which, the Church teaches, is a postive good to be pursued even once the procreative facet of sexual union has been completed?

I don’t know, if I wanted another question to be the answer to my question, I would have stated as such, or said “this is jeopardy”. But I would assume female orgasm may be linked to positive reinforcement for cooperating with God’s procreative design. Now, your turn to answer the original question.

“Motherlode,” not “motherload.” Also, capital letters. Also, “women”? Plural? If so, we have bigger problems here. But atrocious grammar aside…

Thanks for revealing both your grammatical skills, and the fact that it’s quite important to you to chatise someone who is merely asking questions.

I believe that–as the Church has traditionally done in the case of sexuality, which we have always tried to keep shrouded behind a veil of intimate mystery–we leave such considerations to the spouses and their well-formed, Theology-of-the-Body-following consciences, as we do in so many other circumstances surrounding sexual gray areas (e.g. “grave matters” and the just use of NFP). Such extraordinarily legalistic considerations as you suggest have not and never will enter into Church considerations–or would you like to see the Code of Canon Law filled up with measurements written out in milliliters of semen? If that day ever comes, I’ll pay for your measuring cup.

Yeah, thanks. Anyway. I’m not asking how you think Church law or someone else’s conscience would answer that question. I’m asking people like yourself how YOU would answer that question for yourself. If you’re going to respond to my post, you could atleast stay focused on the specific question, or better yet, just say you have no opinion about your personal feelings on the subject.

You need a total of one (1) spermatozoan to reach a total of one (1) available ovum in order to make a baby. 99.999% of male “seed” ends up dead in even your very narrow definition of a proper act of intercourse. So I’m not sure what the relevance of the question is or even what you exactly mean by it, but, clearly, yes, God created man’s ejaculation to distribute way more semen than can possibly unite with the egg.

OK, you’re getting warmer to actually answering questions…we could’ve done without your medical dissertation about fertilization facts, and a speculative remark about what MY definition of intercourse is, which I never provided. Otherwise, I take your final bolded comment here to mean that you don’t care to speculate on God’s willingness to share with you the purpose of the male seed. Instead, you seem to bank on the fact that since, scientically speaking, it only takes one sperm to fertilize, it’s OK to offer a little bit of seed to procreation, and much more of the rest to whatever rightly pleases you. My intent is to punctuate the distinction some have between God’s purposes, and man’s free-will for pleasure.

Fortunately for my argument, the Church makes no such claim–at least, none that I have encountered in my entire, lifelong interest in Church teaching on sexuality, contraception and JPII’s teaching. If you’re going to manufacture your own teachings and call them the Church’s, why would you put the word “Catholic” under the “religion” title of your profile?

Fair enough. I suppose I took this last question off track. I realize now that I was originally prefacing the context of all this as dividing seed between a procreative end and a pleasure end. This particular question was meant to address those who deny any of the seed to the procreative end. My apologies. And certainly, if I felt that if was ever in a situation where I was purposefully “manufacturing teachings”, even to stress a point, I would cease to put my title as Catholic. Thanks for the admonishment.

…I must admit, in my whole life, I have been accused of many, many things because of my Catholicism, but never of schism. Do you have any coherent points to make, Steve?

Never accused you of anything, much less schism. You can read into that what you will, but all I’m asking are honest questions. Perhaps you are still referring to the last question, in which case I think you now understand was a contextual mistake on my part.

God Bless

 

[Wowbagger]

Sorry about my tone, then, Steve. I take a very dim view of people implying that I’m a heretic. I thought that was what you were doing, and I responded with considerable aggression. I sincerely apologize.

That being said, I really don’t know where you’re going with this, so I guess I’ll just answer your questions straight-up and walk into whatever rhetorical trap it is you’re planning to spring.

(1) why do you want to do that? what’s the end goal of that activity?

A: The object of the act is pleasure within the context of a larger unitive and reproductive act of marital intercourse. Pleasure within that context is, of course, permitted, encouraged, and celebrated by the Church.

This was my point regarding the female orgasm. So far as anyone can tell, it serves no reproductive purpose, but the Church supports female orgasm even when not accidental to a reproductive act, as a matter of pure pleasure.

(2) what’s the cutoff point? A trickle in the women, and then the motherload somewhere else? Does that qualify as OK for you? If not, then what?

A: The point I was trying to make was that there is no simple “cutoff point” for this sort of thing. If the couple deliberately withholds as much semen as possible with the intent to frustrate the procreative aspect of intercourse, then there’s a problem. Beyond that, we can trust their consciences to be aware of the difference between enjoying sex and sabotaging fertility. There’s no milliter measurement I can give you, and it probably will vary from couple to couple, sex act to sex act.

I adopt (along with the Church) similar logic with NFP, as I noted before.

I mentioned the Church’s rules on this because, of course, I am ruled in my decisions by the Church, and to ask me what I think is essentially the same as asking me what I understand to be the Church teaching.

(3) do you believe that God created semen and egg to be partially united? By this I mean, do you think God is OK with you divying up the male seed, so long as his procreation purposes are somewhat adhered to?

…OK, you’re getting warmer to actually answering questions…we could’ve done without your medical dissertation about fertilization facts, and a speculative remark about what MY definition of intercourse is, which I never provided. Otherwise, I take your final bolded comment here to mean that you don’t care to speculate on God’s willingness to share with you the purpose of the male seed. Instead, you seem to bank on the fact that since, scientically speaking, it only takes one sperm to fertilize, it’s OK to offer a little bit of seed to procreation, and much more of the rest to whatever rightly pleases you. My intent is to punctuate the distinction some have between God’s purposes, and man’s free-will for pleasure.

I’ve read both the question and the response, and I still have no idea what it is you’re going for here. If your question is, “Does God intend for all semen to be used to obtain the object of reproduction?” then I would answer “No.” The Church does not teach that every sperm is sacred. It teaches that every sex act is.

(4) If The Church says it doesn’t want you to intentionally spill seed anywhere but where it is procreative…do you accept this admonishment, or not? If not, why would you put the word “Catholic” under the “religion” title of your profile?

A: As I said earlier, I would of course accept any directive of the Church without further question (though I’d certainly seek an explanation). I leave the rest aside, because I read the last part as a direct attack against me. I’m sorry I did so.

Not sorry I corrected your grammar, though.

 

[SteveGC]

Sorry about my tone, then, Steve. I take a very dim view of people implying that I’m a heretic. I thought that was what you were doing, and I responded with considerable aggression. I sincerely apologize.

As do I, noticing that I could easily have been misunderstood. Truce, then.

That being said, I really don’t know where you’re going with this, so I guess I’ll just answer your questions straight-up and walk into whatever rhetorical trap it is you’re planning to spring.

No trap. Just a reflection for myself, and anyone else to ponder or comment on. My position is one of obedience to The Church, as it is obviously also your position. But I wanted to explore the briefly mentioned subtopic here which suggested a “gray” area of sinful behavior regarding the division of seed, in a single conjugal act, between the procreative purpose, and the “pleasure” purpose (i.e. finishing inside AND THEN outside). I do agree it is a gray area, seemingly left to our consciences, but I wanted to see if perhaps this “dividing seed” issue could actually fall under the same “ruling” as sinful ‘onanism’. The first 3 original questions were meant to specifically address that scenario.

A: The object of the act is pleasure within the context of a larger unitive and reproductive act of marital intercourse. Pleasure within that context is, of course, permitted, encouraged, and celebrated by the Church. This was my point regarding the female orgasm. So far as anyone can tell, it serves no reproductive purpose, but the Church supports female orgasm even when not accidental to a reproductive act, as a matter of pure pleasure.

But can we equate female orgasm (having no reproductive purpose) with male ejaculation (with much reproductive purpose)? In other words, if the couple is somehow receiving some “pleasure” by the man ejaculating outside the woman (after first doing so inside), does this “pleasure” fit the same “allowable” pleasure as female orgasm?

A: The point I was trying to make was that there is no simple “cutoff point” for this sort of thing. If the couple deliberately withholds as much semen as possible with the intent to frustrate the procreative aspect of intercourse, then there’s a problem. Beyond that, we can trust their consciences to be aware of the difference between enjoying sex and sabotaging fertility. There’s no milliter measurement I can give you, and it probably will vary from couple to couple, sex act to sex act.

Not looking for a specific measurement, it was a rhetorical. But I was wondering, if someone has a comfortable conscience with this division of seed, how they justify the amount of division.

I’ve read both the question and the response, and I still have no idea what it is you’re going for here. If your question is, “Does God intend for all semen to be used to obtain the object of reproduction?” then I would answer “No.” The Church does not teach that every sperm is sacred. It teaches that every sex act is.

Yes,it’s the act, not the sperm that is sacred. But by dividing the sperm, are we not defiling the act? That’s what I was going for. I believe we would be defiling the act by doing so.

Not sorry I corrected your grammar, though.

Touche.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.