If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ahs said:
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:
Click to expand...
Makes sense.
 
I think where the sticking point is, is that there are realities and then there are obligations that are derived from those realities. Physically, the unitive and procreative aspects have a material reality that exists regardless of our choices or behaviors. However, we are more than material creatures. We are also spiritual beings. Therefore, the obligations we have extend further than merely experiencing the physical reality of something.

Regarding procreation…conception obviously occurs outside of marriage. However, we are moral creatures and therefore must respect natural law and honor God’s design for sexual relations and marriage.

Regarding unitive aspect…bonding occurs during sexual relations outside of marriage. This is why sexually active couples are so very heartbroken when their relationships end. Here again, we must respect natural law and honor God’s design for sexual relations and marriage.

It is precisely because these aspects are built into the act of intercourse that there is no such thing as casual sex. Babies and bonding do occur whether in marriage or outside of it. Therefore, we are obliged to act accordingly. We cannot ever really break natural or divine laws, we can only ever break ourselves against them. That is because we are finite, and God, whose laws they are, is infinite.
 
mommamaree said:
I think where the sticking point is, is that there are realities and then there are obligations that are derived from those realities. Physically, the unitive and procreative aspects have a material reality that exists regardless of our choices or behaviors. However, we are more than material creatures. We are also spiritual beings. Therefore, the obligations we have extend further than merely experiencing the physical reality of something.

Regarding procreation…conception obviously occurs outside of marriage. However, we are moral creatures and therefore must respect natural law and honor God’s design for sexual relations and marriage.

Regarding unitive aspect…bonding occurs during sexual relations outside of marriage. This is why sexually active couples are so very heartbroken when their relationships end. Here again, we must respect natural law and honor God’s design for sexual relations and marriage.

It is precisely because these aspects are built into the act of intercourse that there is no such thing as casual sex. Babies and bonding do occur whether in marriage or outside of it. Therefore, we are obliged to act accordingly. We cannot ever really break natural or divine laws, we can only ever break ourselves against them. That is because we are finite, and God, whose laws they are, is infinite.
Click to expand...
👍👍

Excellent post! This is really important to recognize, whatever conclusions it ends up leading to, this is a fundamental part of the Catholic view of sexuality
 
ahs said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it’s called “conjugal act” because it is reserved for marriage. The “conjugal act” could happen outside of marriage. The origin of the word means “to share the same yoke”

Some people tend to think that “unitive” means this lofty highly emotional bond that happens with sex and marriage.

I tend to think that “unitive” refers to the act, the bodies unite. Throughout history I’m sure that there have been licitly married couples that never had that highly bonded feeling.----yet they united and had children

The teaching of the Church is that:
  1. Sex must be unitive and procreative at the same time (when the bodies unite the procreative aspects remain)
  2. Sexuality is sacred and reserved only for marriage.
Illicit unions mock the sacred, and mock the unitive and procreative.

An unmarried couple decide to have a child together. They would be uniting and procreating. The marriage the sacrament is missing though.

A rapist, is forcing the bodies to unite. Sexuality is a gift to be given freely to one’s spouse. It isn’t to be taken by force.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I think it’s called “conjugal act” because it is reserved for marriage. The “conjugal act” could happen outside of marriage. The origin of the word means “to share the same yoke”

Some people tend to think that “unitive” means this lofty highly emotional bond that happens with sex and marriage.

I tend to think that “unitive” refers to the act, the bodies unite. Throughout history I’m sure that there have been licitly married couples that never had that highly bonded feeling.----yet they united and had children

The teaching of the Church is that:
  1. Sex must be unitive and procreative at the same time (when the bodies unite the procreative aspects remain)
  2. Sexuality is sacred and reserved only for marriage.
Illicit unions mock the sacred, and mock the unitive and procreative.

An unmarried couple decide to have a child together. They would be uniting and procreating. The marriage the sacrament is missing though.

A rapist, is forcing the bodies to unite. Sexuality is a gift to be given freely to one’s spouse. It isn’t to be taken by force.
Click to expand...
Wonderfully succinct post, Mary Gail.
 
ahs said:
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:
Click to expand...
I think that is closer to the right of it.

I do think contraception on top of fornication is still an issue, you even mock the act even more. While I know they are not infallible sources the early church fathers felt this away.
catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
A number of those deal with acts of fornication and how you shouldn’t sterilize them.
 
While looking for something else I found an article on Ethical Treatment after Rape. The bit that seems most applicable to the conversation is this bit:
The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Her right to prevent pregnancy seems to be driven by the fact she had had no responsibility for the act.

Here is the whole thing: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
 
LJN21 said:
While looking for something else I found an article on Ethical Treatment after Rape. The bit that seems most applicable to the conversation is this bit:

Her right to prevent pregnancy seems to be driven by the fact she had had no responsibility for the act.

Here is the whole thing: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
Click to expand...
OR it seems to be driven by the fact that it wasn’t a marital act…

“Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love.”
 
mommamaree said:
I think where the sticking point is, is that there are realities and then there are obligations that are derived from those realities. Physically, the unitive and procreative aspects have a material reality that exists regardless of our choices or behaviors. However, we are more than material creatures. We are also spiritual beings. Therefore, the obligations we have extend further than merely experiencing the physical reality of something.

Regarding procreation…conception obviously occurs outside of marriage. However, we are moral creatures and therefore must respect natural law and honor God’s design for sexual relations and marriage.

Regarding unitive aspect…bonding occurs during sexual relations outside of marriage. This is why sexually active couples are so very heartbroken when their relationships end. Here again, we must respect natural law and honor God’s design for sexual relations and marriage.

It is precisely because these aspects are built into the act of intercourse that there is no such thing as casual sex. Babies and bonding do occur whether in marriage or outside of it. Therefore, we are obliged to act accordingly. We cannot ever really break natural or divine laws, we can only ever break ourselves against them. That is because we are finite, and God, whose laws they are, is infinite.
Click to expand...
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I think it’s called “conjugal act” because it is reserved for marriage. The “conjugal act” could happen outside of marriage. The origin of the word means “to share the same yoke”

Some people tend to think that “unitive” means this lofty highly emotional bond that happens with sex and marriage.

I tend to think that “unitive” refers to the act, the bodies unite. Throughout history I’m sure that there have been licitly married couples that never had that highly bonded feeling.----yet they united and had children

The teaching of the Church is that:
  1. Sex must be unitive and procreative at the same time (when the bodies unite the procreative aspects remain)
  2. Sexuality is sacred and reserved only for marriage.
Illicit unions mock the sacred, and mock the unitive and procreative.

An unmarried couple decide to have a child together. They would be uniting and procreating. The marriage the sacrament is missing though.

A rapist, is forcing the bodies to unite. Sexuality is a gift to be given freely to one’s spouse. It isn’t to be taken by force.
Click to expand...
Ditto on both of these being great posts!
 
LJN21 said:
I think that is closer to the right of it.

I do think contraception on top of fornication is still an issue, you even mock the act even more. While I know they are not infallible sources the early church fathers felt this away.
catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
A number of those deal with acts of fornication and how you shouldn’t sterilize them.
Click to expand...
Great link! I read through it some time ago, but I’ll go back this time and read it in light of the context we are looking at now…thanks!
 
LJN21 said:
While looking for something else I found an article on Ethical Treatment after Rape. The bit that seems most applicable to the conversation is this bit:

Her right to prevent pregnancy seems to be driven by the fact she had had no responsibility for the act.

Here is the whole thing: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
Click to expand...
Awesome. I had read this during my conversion, I think, and had forgotten about the document, but had absorbed the reasoning. It makes so much sense. I really believe that this approach is the most loving and compassionate for treating female victims of rape. It really demonstrates a keen awareness of the ugly and traumatic experience she has just endured, as well as look forward to what she still might face in the future as a result of the rape.
 
Debora123 said:
OR it seems to be driven by the fact that it wasn’t a marital act…

“Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love.”
Click to expand...
That is not what it says, because it is unlike what happens in marriages doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the same God given nature. You can’t change the nature of the act. God made it that way, we can’t undo it. We can twist and pervert and use it to hurt rather than he good God intended for it, we can deliberately frustrate it and make a mockery of what God intended, but we can not change the nature of what he made.
 
Debora123 said:
OR it seems to be driven by the fact that it wasn’t a marital act…

“Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love.”
Click to expand...
There are three reasons listed:
  1. Unjust aggression (rapist and his sperm)
  2. Rape is a violent act, not a loving one.
  3. The female victim is not responsible.
You mentioned number 2, the other poster mentioned number 3, but there is a third reason as well. And they all contribute to the explanation of how EC after rape does not contradict Church teaching against contraception.

Earlier in this thread, I pointed out how reason number 1 was not funny. So all three reasons have been addressed in this thread at some point or another, by one poster or another.
 
mommamaree said:
There are three reasons listed:
  1. Unjust aggression (rapist and his sperm)
  2. Rape is a violent act, not a loving one.
  3. The female victim is not responsible.
You mentioned number 2, the other poster mentioned number 3, but there is a third reason as well. And they all contribute to the explanation of how EC after rape does not contradict Church teaching against contraception.

Earlier in this thread, I pointed out how reason number 1 was not funny. So all three reasons have been addressed in this thread at some point or another, by one poster or another.
Click to expand...
True, but there obviously isn’t agreement on the consensus of these three issues.
 
LJN21 said:
That is not what it says, because it is unlike what happens in marriages doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the same God given nature. You can’t change the nature of the act. God made it that way, we can’t undo it. We can twist and pervert and use it to hurt rather than he good God intended for it, we can deliberately frustrate it and make a mockery of what God intended, but we can not change the nature of what he made.
Click to expand...
Not what it says? I copied and pasted exactly what it says:

“Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love.”

This was in the link you provided. I just copied and pasted it.
 
Debora123 said:
Not what it says? I copied and pasted exactly what it says:

“Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love.”

This was in the link you provided. I just copied and pasted it.
Click to expand...
I understand that. It says its “unlike” because spouse give them selves freely.
Its says nothing about the nature of what sex is or the accidentals that go with it. Like, I said before the argument you are using is not unlike trying to prove Mary had other children besides Christ based on the use of the word ‘until’. Just because it is “unlike” in one way or even a lot of different ways doesn’t mean its different in ALL ways, or that the base nature of the act is changed.
 
LJN21 said:
I understand that. It says its “unlike” because spouse give them selves freely.
Its says nothing about the nature of what sex is or the accidentals that go with it. Like, I said before the argument you are using is not unlike trying to prove Mary had other children besides Christ based on the use of the word ‘until’. Just because it is “unlike” in one way or even a lot of different ways doesn’t mean its different in ALL ways, or that the base nature of the act is changed.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top