If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Nate13]

I understand what you are saying. Though I still disagree. I don’t think fornication/rape/prostitution is unitive at all.

I would agree. Its non-nonsensical to say fornication or prostitution is somewhat unitive and then at the same time say the act is a complete contradiction of the nature of the human person in and of itself which it is. All of that pleasure and oneness that the sexual act causes utterly loses its unitive meaning if its being sought in a way that contradicts the very nature of being human.

At a minimum you could say the intent of the people committing the act may be in the right direction, but the act itself is objectively not unitive at all.

 

[Debora123]

I would agree. Its non-nonsensical to say fornication or prostitution is somewhat unitive and then at the same time say the act is a complete contradiction of the nature of the human person in and of itself which it is. All of that pleasure and oneness that the sexual act causes utterly loses its unitive meaning if its being sought in a way that contradicts the very nature of being human.

At a minimum you could say the intent of the people committing the act may be in the right direction, but the act itself is objectively not unitive at all.

Ok, the intent of the people committing the act may be in the right direction, but the act itself is objectively not unitive at all.

 

[ahs]

Fornication is a separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex as well… What your missing here is that sex outside of marriage can never be fully “unitive” as it is defined by the Church whether the couple is using contraceptives or not. Thus the use of contraceptives outside marriage in no real way would increase the seriousness of the sin of fornication unless the contraceptive taken possibly endangers the life of a newly conceived child.

As I said about 5 pages ago, if you define contraception as the splitting of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex then every type of sexual immorality could be called a contraceptive act. The Bible refers to this idea of the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex as “unchastity”. Thus for the term “contraceptive” to have any new meaning it must be used in reference to the deliberate frustration of the conjugal act within marriage or else it just becomes synonymous with sexual immorality and
unchastity. I myself think its pretty clear the Church is using a much narrower definition of contraception when its used in the Catechism to refer to sexually immoral acts within marriage.

This makes it make sense to me now…kinda sews together where I was at and where LJN21 was at.

Man, the more I learn, the more I realize I’ve only skimmed the surface! :hypno: Sometimes I think it’s better to just leave the fine details to the professionals…but it’s just so much fun to dive into it and explore…I just can’t leave it alone!

Debora123, you picked a really great topic to get into!

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I understand what you are saying. Though I still disagree. I don’t think fornication/rape/prostitution is unitive at all.

I think fornication isn’t the same as rape because of the consent aspect. Sex between consenting heterosexual adults isn’t intrinsically evil; it is only sinful when no marriage is involved. On the other hand, rape is never morally right.

I think it can sort of be compared to receiving the Eucharist in a State of Mortal Sin. Receiving the Eucharist is not intrinsically evil, but with Mortal Sin on the soul, one has not gone through the necessary steps to receive.

 

[Nate13]

This makes it make sense to me now…kinda sews together where I was at and where LJN21 was at.

Man, the more I learn, the more I realize I’ve only skimmed the surface! :hypno: Sometimes I think it’s better to just leave the fine details to the professionals…but it’s just so much fun to dive into it and explore…I just can’t leave it alone!

And its important to practice putting Church teaching into words ourselves. Otherwise we are completely worthless when it comes to spreading all the Truth of the Church

 

[Debora123]

I think fornication isn’t the same as rape because of the consent aspect. Sex between consenting heterosexual adults isn’t intrinsically evil; it is only sinful when no marriage is involved. On the other hand, rape is never morally right.

I think it can sort of be compared to receiving the Eucharist in a State of Mortal Sin. Receiving the Eucharist is not intrinsically evil, but with Mortal Sin on the soul, one has not gone through the necessary steps to receive.

Of course, fornication is not the same as rape… which is not the same as prostitution. I still don’t think any of those acts are unifying though. I think being married to the person is a big part of what makes unitive sex unitive.

 

[Debora123]

Debora123, you picked a really great topic to get into!

Thanks!

Though it’s definitely gotten quite frustrating…

I still agree with what you said here, and I think you’ve put it into one sentence much better than I ever could:

However, since fornication is a distortion and mockery of the conjugal union, whether those aspects are thwarted or not is a moot point, because the sin of fornication is its very own grave disorder.

 

[thewanderer]

Of course, fornication is not the same as rape… which is not the same as prostitution. I still don’t think any of those acts are unifying though. I think being married to the person is a big part of what makes unitive sex unitive.

Not properly unifying, no. But I think the point that was brought up is that their is a chemical reaction that occurs that causes a certain amount of bonding between those involved to take place, and this reaction is not something that only happens when one is married. Bonding is a kind of drawing together, a kind of unifying. Obviously without marriage it is a deeply flawed unity, but there is some sort of unity present as long as this chemical is released, no matter how imperfect, thats just the biology of what happens.

 

[Debora123]

Not properly unifying, no. But I think the point that was brought up is that their is a chemical reaction that occurs that causes a certain amount of bonding between those involved to take place, and this reaction is not something that only happens when one is married. Bonding is a kind of drawing together, a kind of unifying. Obviously without marriage it is a deeply flawed unity, but there is some sort of unity present as long as this chemical is released, no matter how imperfect, thats just the biology of what happens.

Yes, as I’ve stated earlier, there is chemical/emotional bonding in sex outside of marriage as well… and I believe that this emotional bonding is a part of unity but not the largest, most dominating part of it… and I definitely don’t think that just because emotional bonding can happen during fornication, it therefore makes the act unitive. It cannot truly be unitive unless it is a compete self gift within the sacrament of matrimony.

 

[ahs]

Yes, as I’ve stated earlier, there is chemical/emotional bonding in sex outside of marriage as well… and I believe that this emotional bonding is a part of unity but not the largest, most dominating part of it… and I definitely don’t think that just because emotional bonding can happen during fornication, it therefore makes the act unitive. It cannot truly be unitive unless it is a compete self gift within the sacrament of matrimony.

Right…it’s just a “mock” unity. And I’ll agree with Debora123 100% on this…I don’t care what a rapist may be thinking or feeling…rape is not unitive in any way shape or form. The very nature of the unitive aspect is completely obliterated in a rape scenario.

 

[Debora123]

However we word any of this, the bottom line in my thinking is this:

The Church teaches that for marital sex to be moral, it must be both unitive and procreative.

I don’t think the same thing applies to sex that is outside of marriage, because it is already a disordered act. So, why should there be a moral requirement to an act that is already gravely twisted and disordered?

Bottom line, fornication/prostitution/rape are not morally called to be unitive and procreative. They are just called to stop taking place. There is no moral requirement to not use a condom when having sex with a boyfriend, a prostitute, or a rapist… like there is with a spouse.

I hope everyone can at least understand what I’m saying. I am trying to be as clear as possible but I often have a difficult time putting my thoughts into words.

 

[ahs]

However we word any of this, the bottom line in my thinking is this:

The Church teaches that **for marital sex **to be moral, it must be both unitive and procreative.

I don’t think the same thing applies to sex that is outside of marriage, because it is already a disordered act. So, why should there be a moral requirement to an act that is already gravely twisted and disordered?

Bottom line, fornication/prostitution/rape are not morally called to be unitive and procreative. They are just called to stop taking place. There is no moral requirement to not use a condom when having sex with a boyfriend, a prostitute, or a rapist.

I hope everyone can at least understand what I’m saying. I am trying to be as clear as possible but I often have a difficult time putting my thoughts into words.

That’s pretty clear. And I agree with you. (emphasis mine)

 

[Debora123]

That’s pretty clear. And I agree with you. (emphasis mine)

 

[ahs]

Bottom line, fornication/prostitution/rape are not morally called to be unitive and procreative. They are just called to stop taking place.

Sorry, just have point to this specifically. THIS, EXACTLY THIS! You cannot call for a disordered act to be “ordered toward…whatever”. The act is already an abomination in its own right. It would make no sense to say, “each act of fornication must be properly ordered toward procreation and unification” because fornication is not supposed to exist in the first place.

 

[Nate13]

However we word any of this, the bottom line in my thinking is this:

The Church teaches that for marital sex to be moral, it must be both unitive and procreative.

I don’t think the same thing applies to sex that is outside of marriage, because it is already a disordered act. So, why should there be a moral requirement to an act that is already gravely twisted and disordered?

Actually I’m going to disagree with how you worded this lol. Fornication, rape, prostitution are disordered because they separate the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. When you say these acts are “disordered” your saying they contradict the nature of the human person. When you say they go against the nature of the human person that = separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. They are all just different ways of saying the same thing.

 

[Debora123]

Sorry, just have point to this specifically. THIS, EXACTLY THIS! You cannot call for a disordered act to be “ordered toward…whatever”. The act is already an abomination in its own right. It would make no sense to say, “each act of fornication must be properly ordered toward procreation and unification” because fornication is not supposed to exist in the first place.

Yup.

 

[Debora123]

Actually I’m going to disagree with how you worded this lol. Fornication, rape, prostitution are disordered because they separate the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. When you say these acts are “disordered” your saying they contradict the nature of the human person. When you say they go against the nature of the human person that = separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. They are all just different ways of saying the same thing.

Yeah you have a track record of disagreeing with me in any way you can, even when we agree.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, as I’ve stated earlier, there is chemical/emotional bonding in sex outside of marriage as well… and I believe that this emotional bonding is a part of unity but not the largest, most dominating part of it… and I definitely don’t think that just because emotional bonding can happen during fornication, it therefore makes the act unitive. It cannot truly be unitive unless it is a compete self gift within the sacrament of matrimony.

It seems we are just talking past each other. You are using the word unitive in a more restrictive way than I am. We do not disagree on the fundamental reality of the kind of bonding/unity/whatever you want to call it going on.

 

[Nate13]

Yeah you have a track record of disagreeing with me in any way you can, even when we agree.

What can I say I can’t help it in this case. Your saying there is a difference between saying a sexual act is disordered and saying it separates the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. They are two ways of saying the same thing in my opinion.

 

[ahs]

Yeah you have a track record of disagreeing with me in any way you can, even when we agree.

Ppphhhttttt…bwahahahahahaha!