If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LJN21 said:
I don’t think that is a correct analysis. The untive doesn’t just turn on at marriage its always there that is why prostitution and fornication are a mockery of the act.

It is Naturally ordered… we don’t order it our selves. Regardless of how the sex act happens its already by its nature unitive and procreative.

Yes when it talks about situation around marriage it goes in to deeper detail, because that is the only licit use of the act. The lack of speech about the procreative and unitive outside of marriage does not mean it can not happen outside. Your argument is not unlike trying to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity because the bible says she remained a virgin until Jesus birth.

No, its because the rapist has no right to her body.

Your right and wrong. “Carnal Union” is a mockery because the unitive and procreative are still there and the participants are mocking them by their actions.

The unitive aspect of sex isn’t just a rosy idea the Church has. There is chemical bonding that happens when someone as sex. This is a scientific fact. When the Church speaks of the Unitive that is what she is referring to.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. That the natural end of sex is unitive and procreative does not change whether it’s forced or unforced.
 
LJN21 said:
Remember the idea behind moralization is not the the actions are remotely moral, but that the person is starting to think about another person, as another person, and not just a means to a end.
Click to expand...
👍 Exactly.

We seem to be on the same page in this thread. 😃
 
Debora123 said:
Would you also say rape has those aspects?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the procreative aspect is definitely present and, for the rapist at least, the unitive aspect still is. Rape is a forcible violation of a person’s sexual intimacy. It takes something God made to be beautiful and good and makes it evil and ugly.

The reason that EC is allowed following rape, provided that the woman has not ovulated, is because rape is NOT part of God’s design. God never intended rape to be permissible. It is an act of violence. A woman has the right to plead for her life,to beg her rapist to withdraw or use a condom, or to follow up with EC if she is not already pregnant or if she has not yet ovulated. If a child is conceived by rape, the child is now a second innocent victim, and deserves to be protected along with the mother. However, acting swiftly to prevent conception is not sinful, but merciful.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
The Pope didn’t say prostitution was a step towards moralization, he said wearing a condom during prostitution was a step towards moralization.
Click to expand...
Sigh

Yes, I know… that’s what I said… multiple times. I was the one who brought up the issue in the first place.
Keeping the same parallel then if the abortionist lies to the young girl’s mother so that she doesn’t get in trouble for the abortion (I have no idea how this would work in real life, this is just for comparison’s sake), if he’s never done that before it might be a step towards moralization as long as he’s doing it out of a desire to stop the young girl from suferring any more than she already has. It’s still wrong, but perhaps it shows a stirring in the abortionist’s heart where he’s really starting to care about people.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why we’re having such a hard time here. Perhaps I’m not doing a good job relying what I’m trying to say. Either way, it’s not important.
 
mommamaree said:
Unfortunately, the procreative aspect is definitely present and, for the rapist at least, the unitive aspect still is. Rape is a forcible violation of a person’s sexual intimacy. It takes something God made to be beautiful and good and makes it evil and ugly.
Click to expand...
Yes, the procreative aspect is still there (if no contraception is being used)… but morally, is it supposed to be there? Would the rapist be committing an extra sin if he put on a condom before he raped the girl? Obviously, we can both at least agree that it’s ok for the girl to want to contracept against the rapist.

As for your claim that the unitive aspect of sex is present during rape… well, I can’t say I agree. I am sorry.
 
Debora123 said:
Yes, the procreative aspect is still there (if no contraception is being used)… but morally, is it supposed to be there? Would the rapist be committing an extra sin if he put on a condom before he raped the girl? Obviously, we can both at least agree that it’s ok for the girl to want to contracept against the rapist.

As for your claim that the unitive aspect of sex is present during rape… well, I can’t say I agree. I am sorry.
Click to expand...
How would it just go way? If its there with a husband and a wife how is it not there in every other situation. Keep in mind this isn’t some fuzzy feeling of love we’re talking about but an actual chemical reaction that happens during sex.
 
LJN21 said:
How would it just go way? If its there with a husband and a wife how is it not there in every other situation. Keep in mind this isn’t some fuzzy feeling of love we’re talking about but an actual chemical reaction that happens during sex.
Click to expand...
Unity in sex is a lot more than just the release of oxytocin. Unity is 2 people becoming one in an act that physically represents their commitment, their oneness, and their wedding vows.
 
Debora123 said:
Unity in sex is a lot more than just the release of oxytocin. Unity is 2 people becoming one in an act that physically represents their commitment, their oneness, and their wedding vows.
Click to expand...
Yes in Marriage, but that is not what we are taking about.

I would argue the untive is precisely what makes rape is so evil and horrifying. Even if there is no chance of pregnancy, and the victim knows it, there is still untold mental anguish and hurt in being violated in such a way. Getting simply assaulted in a non sexual way does not have near the impact on a someones mind. That is not to say there isn’t mental as well as physical damage done its not really comparable.
 
Debora123 said:
Unity in sex is a lot more than just the release of oxytocin. Unity is 2 people becoming one in an act that physically represents their commitment, their oneness, and their wedding vows.
Click to expand...
Yes. You are right. This is the fullness of what God intends for a married couple. However, that does not mean that when sex occurs outside of the ideal environment that no unitive aspect is present. Instead, the unitive aspect is being damaged and mocked.

As an aside, it is an uncomfortable reality that a rape victim, male or female, may have an unwanted orgasm. This has happened and causes even more shame for the victim. Also, in cases of repeated sexual assaults, the victim sometimes becomes “bonded” to the rapist. This happens, in part at least,because the unitive aspects (even those not entailing orgasm) are still present.

Again, this is one of the reasons rape is so much worse than a physical beating. Precisely because it mocks the natural ends of a loving sexual encounter. Rape twists reality but cannot erase reality. Just as Satan is the father of lies, rape is his way of corrupting sex. He can twist reality, but not erase it. Creatures do not have that power. Only the Creator does.
 
mommamaree said:
Unfortunately, the procreative aspect is definitely present and, for the rapist at least, the unitive aspect still is. Rape is a forcible violation of a person’s sexual intimacy. It takes something God made to be beautiful and good and makes it evil and ugly.

The reason that EC is allowed following rape, provided that the woman has not ovulated, is because rape is NOT part of God’s design. God never intended rape to be permissible. It is an act of violence. A woman has the right to plead for her life,to beg her rapist to withdraw or use a condom, or to follow up with EC if she is not already pregnant or if she has not yet ovulated. If a child is conceived by rape, the child is now a second innocent victim, and deserves to be protected along with the mother. However, acting swiftly to prevent conception is not sinful, but merciful.
Click to expand...
That’s debatable unfortunately, thanks to Biblical passages in the O.T. that illustrated men taking women by force at God’s command.
 
I agree with the others who feel that the unitive/procreative aspects are for the conjugal act, and not for fornication, rape, or prostitution.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
That’s debatable unfortunately, thanks to Biblical passages in the O.T. that illustrated men taking women by force at God’s command.
Click to expand...
Leave it to an agnostic to know the OT better than a Christian. 😊
To which passages are you referring, please? Thank you.

Also, remember that we are Catholics, not fundamentalists. We do not believe in Sola Scriptura.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
That’s debatable unfortunately, thanks to Biblical passages in the O.T. that illustrated men taking women by force at God’s command.
Click to expand...
The bible is a tool. Not the end all be all of our faith.

As Catholics, we’re not even required to believe in the OT literally.
 
Debora123 said:
I agree with the others who feel that the unitive/procreative aspects are for the conjugal act, and not for fornication, rape, or prostitution.
Click to expand...
Really? Procreative aspects reserved for the conjugal act within marriage only? How do you account for the prevalence of unwed mothers? Are you then saying you would agree with Rep. Akin’s remarks that conception is unlikely in cases of “legitimate rape”?

Respectfully Debora, this is a denial of reality. Conception is possible any time sexual contact occurs between a male and female (who is of child- bearing age).

Procreative aspect refers to intercourse capable of bringing about conception.

You may choose to ignore my points about the unitive aspects that remain, but can you really deny the procreative aspects without suffering serious cognitive dissonance?
 
Bookcat said:
I would not quite put it that way…

Rather: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm
Click to expand...
“The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings. Take, as an example, Jonah’s escapade at sea, which readers often find disturbing. Ronald Knox said “no defender of the sense of Scripture ever pretended, surely, that this was a natural event. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle; and not to my mind a more startling miracle than the raising of Lazarus, in which I take off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque which is present in it.” (Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties (London: Eyre& Spottiswoode, 1951), 109.)
Click to expand...
The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a “great fish” is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view…”
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14313

We mean the same thing. No need to be picky about semantics. I’m sure AA8 understands what we mean.
 
Bookcat said:
See CCC quote above for explaination and Church Teaching.
Click to expand...
I’ve looked into this topic A LOT. I know what the Church teaching is on it. It seems you simply didn’t like the way I worded what I meant, but we mean the same thing.
 
LJN21 said:
I don’t think that is a correct analysis. The untive doesn’t just turn on at marriage its always there that is why prostitution and fornication are a mockery of the act.
It is Naturally ordered… we don’t order it our selves. Regardless of how the sex act happens its already by its nature unitive and procreative.

Yes when it talks about situation around marriage it goes in to deeper detail, because that is the only licit use of the act. The lack of speech about the procreative and unitive outside of marriage does not mean it can not happen outside. Your argument is not unlike trying to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity because the bible says she remained a virgin until Jesus birth…

…Your right and wrong. “Carnal Union” is a mockery because the unitive and procreative are still there and the participants are mocking them by their actions.

The unitive aspect of sex isn’t just a rosy idea the Church has. There is chemical bonding that happens when someone as sex. This is a scientific fact. When the Church speaks of the Unitive that is what she is referring to.
Click to expand...
mommamaree said:
Unfortunately, the procreative aspect is definitely present and, for the rapist at least, the unitive aspect still is. Rape is a forcible violation of a person’s sexual intimacy. It takes something God made to be beautiful and good and makes it evil and ugly.

The reason that EC is allowed following rape, provided that the woman has not ovulated, is because rape is NOT part of God’s design. God never intended rape to be permissible. It is an act of violence. A woman has the right to plead for her life,to beg her rapist to withdraw or use a condom, or to follow up with EC if she is not already pregnant or if she has not yet ovulated. If a child is conceived by rape, the child is now a second innocent victim, and deserves to be protected along with the mother. However, acting swiftly to prevent conception is not sinful, but merciful.
Click to expand...
That’s definitely a lot to consider, and it makes sense. Still, where does the procreative and unitive aspect of the marital union come from (hormones and all)? I think (and again, just my thoughts) they a born out of marriage itself. Remember, in marriage, the 2 are longer 2, but one flesh. It is marriage itself that unites a couple as 1. In that unity, each marital act (sex) is by its very nature, ordered to unity and procreation. The unitive aspect is the reality that stems from the fact of the actual union, and the procreative aspect stems from the marital union as well…procreation being that physical manifestation of the unity between the spouses. (Again, just thinking out loud here.) Because one could no more separate what God has joined (break apart the married couple) one can also not thwart the either the unitive or procreative natures of the conjugal act without gravely distorting the reality of the marriage.

This is what fornication does…it “mocks” marriage. And then the unitive and procreative aspects in fornication are also just “mock” aspects…they are not real.
Fornication is a mockery of the unitive and procreative aspects…because it attempts to mirror those aspects that don’t actually exist in fornication. The unitive aspect is simply absent in fornication because the unitive aspect 1) demands mutual self-giving and 2) is only present in marriage. Remember that a marriage is not valid (can be annulled) if one of the parties did not give full consent…was not mutually self-giving.

However…and here’s is where I’m uncertain of my position…procreation that would result from fornication is no less real than procreation in marriage. It does not stem from the procreative nature of the conjugal act because it is not a conjugal act. But if procreation still occurs, can I say, on the one hand, that the procreation is simply the natural result of sperm+egg in the carnal union while still saying that the carnal union has no procreative nature, per se? Can I rightly say that the REAL procreation that occurred can result from a “mock” procreative nature? Hmm…I’m scratching my head on this one.
 
OR, maybe it’s more along the lines of: the unitive and procreative aspects of sex (marital sex) do exist apart from marriage, per se, by the very nature of what sex represents. 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.

If I can find a concise way to put this, I may ask it in the AAA forum. It just seems like it would get way too verbose, and thus ignored. :hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top