R
Rau
Guest
End: Avoid conceiving a child at the present time;
Candidate Means:
- Delay one’s proposed marriage (implying so sex);
- Don’t have sex;
- Don’t have sex while fertile;
- Onanism;
- Condom;
- Pill.
- Status
Candidate Means:
R
Rau
Guest
My post commenced “in general”. I think we could agree Mary and Joseph don’t fit the “general case”?
If one is firmly opposed to having children, marriage is not appropriate.
E
edlinked
Guest
Jaaanosik,
Do you go against the Church, because if you are trying to defend contraception with anything, know that you can’t, if you follow the Church.
“Put simply, natural theology says that people behave morally when they act in accord with the natural order. That which is natural, though, is not simply that which is physical or biological, but rather that which follows God’s activity in creation. The order of nature, writes John Paul II, is generally confused with the “biological order” and so deprived of all importance. It is much easier to understand the power of the natural order (and its constitutive significance for morality, and for the development of the human personality) if we see behind it the personal authority of the Creator.”
Obedience is sometimes very important, because pleasures are magnets for our own convenience.
Do you go against the Church, because if you are trying to defend contraception with anything, know that you can’t, if you follow the Church.
“Put simply, natural theology says that people behave morally when they act in accord with the natural order. That which is natural, though, is not simply that which is physical or biological, but rather that which follows God’s activity in creation. The order of nature, writes John Paul II, is generally confused with the “biological order” and so deprived of all importance. It is much easier to understand the power of the natural order (and its constitutive significance for morality, and for the development of the human personality) if we see behind it the personal authority of the Creator.”
Obedience is sometimes very important, because pleasures are magnets for our own convenience.
R
Rau
Guest
Terming it “medical rape” is an absurd description. I assume you broadly understood the procedure before your first test and did not approach the doctor as though he were a rapist.
The test is a preventive measure against cervical cancer, which can be a very slowly developing cancer, caused by HPV, which is an exceptionally common virus.
E
edlinked
Guest
Guys come on, the term used by Crown of stars comes from what she felt. She said she hated it. Try to understand and be sensible from that point of view, it was not meant to be a correct term.
V
Vico
Guest
The car is not a natural form of transportation. The topic here is restricted to conjugal relations.
There is no mention of periods.
R
Rau
Guest
Motor cars have nothing to do with moral theology - they are not unnatural in that context. They are not biological, not an extension of our body - but that is if no moral consequence.
It is not immoral, nor unnatural, for caveman to kill prey with a spear. Bare hands need not be used.
E
edlinked
Guest
Marriage is a sacrament, it is a sacrament because of God. So it comes from God, and if God is Love, it comes from Love.
If love should come from virtue, then it is unnatural for me to discourage virtues, it would be natural to encourage them. In my understanding having children instead of going against virtues goes with virtues. We see that even chastity should be encouraged in marriage.
Thats why I state that sexual pleasure (intercourse) is not love and this should be clear.
“
Without the virtue of temperance, without chastity and self mastery, it is impossible to educate and develop tenderness in man, so that it does not hinder love but serves it. For a serious danger occurs of some shallow, superficial lived experience of love and at the same time its “consumption” (i.e., using up the material from which love is formed in a woman and a man). Within limits of such lived experience both persons will fail in the effort to reach love’s objective profile and the proper good, but will remain with purely subjective manifestations, deriving from them merely ephemeral pleasures. Then love, instead of constantly beginning anew and constantly growing between them, quite the contrary, constantly, so to speak, ends and breaks off. Let us add that among other things a great deal depends here on the correct education of tenderness, on the responsibility for its manifestations….
Tenderness has an enormous role to fulfill here. When thoroughly joined with true love of the person, and being disinterested, it is capable of leading love out of various dangers of egoism of the senses, out of the dangers of the attitude to use. Tenderness is the ability to feel the whole man, the whole person, in all, even the most hidden movements of his soul, but always bearing in mind the true good of that person….
For love is something different from amorous lived experiences. Love is formed on the basis of a thorough and fully responsible relation of a person to another person, whereas amorous lived-experiences are born spontaneously in reactions of sensuality and affectivity. A very abundant development of these lived-experiences may conceal in itself an underdevelopment of love. Therefore, in our analysis of love, we drew attention to the necessity of distinguishing between these two profiles: the objective and the subjective.
And therefore we must consider very seriously the possibility of a disintegration of love. This refers to a lived-experience or even a number of amorous lived-experiences that find their source and basis in the senses and affections, while themselves being still personally immature. The desintegration means above all an underdevelopment of the ethical essence of love.
Hence one may not call love what is merely its element or “part”, since an improper concentration of these “parts” or elements can result not in love, but rather in the denial of love. Furthermore, there is a fundamental postulate from the viewpoint of ethics: for the good of love, for the sake of realizing love’s true essence both in every person and between persons, it is necessary to be freed from all those “amorous” lived-experiences that do not find justification in true love, that is, in the reciprocal relation between a man and a woman based on a mature affirmation of the value of the person. This postulate hits the crux of the matter concerning chastity. The word chastity speaks of being free from all that “makes dirty”. Love must be in a sense transparent: through all lived experiences, through all deeds that find their source in it, it must always be apparent that this relation to the person of the other sex proceeds from a genuine affirmation of his value. Since the lived-experiences and deeds that deprive love of this transparency spring from the substratum of the senses and the affections connected to them, a separate virtue is needed in order to protect from this side the true character and objective profile of love. This virtue is chastity, which is allied most closely with the love of persons Y and X.”
" From Love and Responsibility From Karol Wojtyla
If love should come from virtue, then it is unnatural for me to discourage virtues, it would be natural to encourage them. In my understanding having children instead of going against virtues goes with virtues. We see that even chastity should be encouraged in marriage.
Thats why I state that sexual pleasure (intercourse) is not love and this should be clear.
“
Without the virtue of temperance, without chastity and self mastery, it is impossible to educate and develop tenderness in man, so that it does not hinder love but serves it. For a serious danger occurs of some shallow, superficial lived experience of love and at the same time its “consumption” (i.e., using up the material from which love is formed in a woman and a man). Within limits of such lived experience both persons will fail in the effort to reach love’s objective profile and the proper good, but will remain with purely subjective manifestations, deriving from them merely ephemeral pleasures. Then love, instead of constantly beginning anew and constantly growing between them, quite the contrary, constantly, so to speak, ends and breaks off. Let us add that among other things a great deal depends here on the correct education of tenderness, on the responsibility for its manifestations….
Tenderness has an enormous role to fulfill here. When thoroughly joined with true love of the person, and being disinterested, it is capable of leading love out of various dangers of egoism of the senses, out of the dangers of the attitude to use. Tenderness is the ability to feel the whole man, the whole person, in all, even the most hidden movements of his soul, but always bearing in mind the true good of that person….
For love is something different from amorous lived experiences. Love is formed on the basis of a thorough and fully responsible relation of a person to another person, whereas amorous lived-experiences are born spontaneously in reactions of sensuality and affectivity. A very abundant development of these lived-experiences may conceal in itself an underdevelopment of love. Therefore, in our analysis of love, we drew attention to the necessity of distinguishing between these two profiles: the objective and the subjective.
And therefore we must consider very seriously the possibility of a disintegration of love. This refers to a lived-experience or even a number of amorous lived-experiences that find their source and basis in the senses and affections, while themselves being still personally immature. The desintegration means above all an underdevelopment of the ethical essence of love.
Hence one may not call love what is merely its element or “part”, since an improper concentration of these “parts” or elements can result not in love, but rather in the denial of love. Furthermore, there is a fundamental postulate from the viewpoint of ethics: for the good of love, for the sake of realizing love’s true essence both in every person and between persons, it is necessary to be freed from all those “amorous” lived-experiences that do not find justification in true love, that is, in the reciprocal relation between a man and a woman based on a mature affirmation of the value of the person. This postulate hits the crux of the matter concerning chastity. The word chastity speaks of being free from all that “makes dirty”. Love must be in a sense transparent: through all lived experiences, through all deeds that find their source in it, it must always be apparent that this relation to the person of the other sex proceeds from a genuine affirmation of his value. Since the lived-experiences and deeds that deprive love of this transparency spring from the substratum of the senses and the affections connected to them, a separate virtue is needed in order to protect from this side the true character and objective profile of love. This virtue is chastity, which is allied most closely with the love of persons Y and X.”
" From Love and Responsibility From Karol Wojtyla
E
edlinked
Guest
"
Although love is based on the body and the senses so firmly and explicitly, it is nevertheless not the body and the senses alone that create its proper framework and proper profile. Love is always an affair of interiority and of spirit, in fact, to the degree it ceases to be an affair of interiority and of spirit it also ceases to be love. What remains in it in the senses themselves and in the sexual vitality of the human body alone does not constitute its proper essence. The will (in its freedom) is in a sense the last resort in the person; without its participation no lived experience has full personal value, it does not possess the complete specific weight of the person.
Love in the psychological sense must be subordinated in man to love in the ethical sense, otherwise the integration of love is out of the question.
There can be no psychological fullness of love until ethical fullness is achieved. Love understood as many situations or a as concrete one, are psychologically mature and complete insofar as in each of them separately and all together, love possesses its ethical value.
Love has its ethical sense as it is bound and “governed” by the personalistic norm. So love as lived experience must be subordinated to love as virtue, and to such extent, that without love as virtue there can be no fullness of the lived-experience of love. The Christian Gospel knows love as a supernatural virtue, a divine virtue. A supernatural virtue is rooted in nature and acquires some human form thanks to man’s actions, and at the same time is expressed and confirm in his action, both In interior and exterior acts.
In accord with the full meaning of the word, love is a virtue and not merely an affection. Love as a virtue lives in the will by being disposed toward the value of the person, and so it is the source of the affirmation of the person that permeates all reactions, lived experiences, and all conduct in general.
Love as a virtue relates to affective love and sensual desire, as the point in the ethical order, is to bind the sexual values firmly with the value of the person, since love neither turns to the “body” alone nor even to the “human being of the other sex” himself, but precisely to the person. Love cannot be based neither on sensuality or affectivity alone as they in some way deviate from the true fullness of the person, and do not permit or at least do not lead to his affirmation.
“ From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla
Although love is based on the body and the senses so firmly and explicitly, it is nevertheless not the body and the senses alone that create its proper framework and proper profile. Love is always an affair of interiority and of spirit, in fact, to the degree it ceases to be an affair of interiority and of spirit it also ceases to be love. What remains in it in the senses themselves and in the sexual vitality of the human body alone does not constitute its proper essence. The will (in its freedom) is in a sense the last resort in the person; without its participation no lived experience has full personal value, it does not possess the complete specific weight of the person.
Love in the psychological sense must be subordinated in man to love in the ethical sense, otherwise the integration of love is out of the question.
There can be no psychological fullness of love until ethical fullness is achieved. Love understood as many situations or a as concrete one, are psychologically mature and complete insofar as in each of them separately and all together, love possesses its ethical value.
Love has its ethical sense as it is bound and “governed” by the personalistic norm. So love as lived experience must be subordinated to love as virtue, and to such extent, that without love as virtue there can be no fullness of the lived-experience of love. The Christian Gospel knows love as a supernatural virtue, a divine virtue. A supernatural virtue is rooted in nature and acquires some human form thanks to man’s actions, and at the same time is expressed and confirm in his action, both In interior and exterior acts.
In accord with the full meaning of the word, love is a virtue and not merely an affection. Love as a virtue lives in the will by being disposed toward the value of the person, and so it is the source of the affirmation of the person that permeates all reactions, lived experiences, and all conduct in general.
Love as a virtue relates to affective love and sensual desire, as the point in the ethical order, is to bind the sexual values firmly with the value of the person, since love neither turns to the “body” alone nor even to the “human being of the other sex” himself, but precisely to the person. Love cannot be based neither on sensuality or affectivity alone as they in some way deviate from the true fullness of the person, and do not permit or at least do not lead to his affirmation.
“ From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
This is your original quote:
Here is the quote from Edlinked:
Your original quote describes physical/biological act.
It appears you failed to define how it’s related to the Natural Moral Law.
You really are describing physical/biological part of the act.
My reply was meant to point out where you made the mistake.
Yes, car is not natural way of transportation, still it’s not a sin to use it.
Why is it a sin to use condom?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
I’ll give you another example. Is it OK to express love between spouses over the phone?
Missing pure ‘color’ of voice, facial expressions, …
The answer is yes, it’s morally OK.
Why expressing the love between the spouse when they have sex and use condom is not OK?
Well, because it’s not ‘procreative’.
This comes back the full circle to the question how the definition of ‘procreative’ came to be?
Please, don’t make the same mistake as Vico did and do not link it to the biological aspect of the act.
E
edlinked
Guest
Jaaanosik,
You are deviating from the thread, you should start a thread if that is your question.
If you are a catholic you follow the Church and its teachings because she is the one that carries the Holy Spirit.
If you want to go against it then, you dont go with the Church.
But this are matters that dont go directly with this thread and it would be better if you should create a new one.
Morality comes from the dignity of the person.
You are deviating from the thread, you should start a thread if that is your question.
If you are a catholic you follow the Church and its teachings because she is the one that carries the Holy Spirit.
If you want to go against it then, you dont go with the Church.
But this are matters that dont go directly with this thread and it would be better if you should create a new one.
Morality comes from the dignity of the person.
E
edlinked
Guest
“
Pleasure by its very essence is a good that is merely temporary, belonging solely to a given subject—its not a supra subjective or transsubjective good. So as long as this good is considered to be the complete basis of the moral norm, there can be no way of transcending what is good only for me. “
"The utilitarian mentality point is to obtain the greatest possible pleasure, which the sexual sphere provides in such a prominent degree in the form of libido. Catholics ethics, however, protests in the name of its personalistics presuppositions: one may not be led by the “balance of pleasure” alone where the relation to the person comes into play— the person may not in any way be an object of use.
” From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla
Pleasure by its very essence is a good that is merely temporary, belonging solely to a given subject—its not a supra subjective or transsubjective good. So as long as this good is considered to be the complete basis of the moral norm, there can be no way of transcending what is good only for me. “
"The utilitarian mentality point is to obtain the greatest possible pleasure, which the sexual sphere provides in such a prominent degree in the form of libido. Catholics ethics, however, protests in the name of its personalistics presuppositions: one may not be led by the “balance of pleasure” alone where the relation to the person comes into play— the person may not in any way be an object of use.
” From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Why a spouse wants to give a pleasure to the other?
To express love. It’s like saying ‘I love you’.
Is saying I love you to a spouse love itself? No, love is much more, but it’s extremely important to do so as often as possible.
Spouses leave mothers and fathers; they become one.
This new one is a new entity; it’s a new body.
Sexual pleasure is a ‘food’ for this new body.
Somebody eats more, somebody less, somebody sticks to one type of food, somebody likes variety…
This new body, new entity is real. It has its own life. Own self-preservation instinct!
To force rules how to eat is not going to work. The self-preservation kicks in, that’s natural for this new entity.
That might be an allegory describing why the Church’s teaching on sexuality is not accepted as the Church thought it should be.
If you are interested, please, think hard what is being said here.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
When I started to post in this thread I asked the question of what is and where the definition of ‘procreative aspect’ came from.
It is related to this thread.
E
edlinked
Guest
Jaaanosik,
This thread is not analyzing why the Church states that contraception is bad. So you see that your question should need another thread, because that is what you want to talk about. .
This thread is not analyzing why the Church states that contraception is bad. So you see that your question should need another thread, because that is what you want to talk about. .
R
Rau
Guest
That is another failed analogy. Is it ok to speak with the light off?
Why was Onanism punished by God with death? The law at the time only prescribed public humiliation for failing to do the right thing by one’s brother’s widow. What was Onan punished for?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Was Onan punished for what he did? Or for how he did it?That is another failed analogy. Is it ok to speak with the light off?
Why was Onanism punished by God with death? The law at the time only prescribed public humiliation for failing to do the right thing by one’s brother’s widow. What was Onan punished for?
Onan was punished because he disobeyed God. He got a command from God to do something.
You are trying to imply that disobeying God is less important reason and that he was killed due to the fact that he spilled the semen.
The whole Onan story is described in more than 100 words, setup, circumstances, … and at the end just maybe 7 words that he spilled the semen.
So the rest is not important just those 7 words. Where is logic in that?
R
Rau
Guest
You have quoted the “Church Fathers” previously. Had you done so again in seeking to explore the story of Onan, you would see that their understanding of Onan’s sin is that he pursued sex but took steps to prevent that act resulting in pregnancy. Now, their understanding of the precise mechanism of fertility does not alter that. The Church today holds the same understanding of Onan as did the Church Fathers. Are you implying they and the Church are all wrong?
- Status