If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[LJN21]

I disagree.

You disagree that it is possible for bonds and pregnancy to happen in fornicating couples?

Do you disagree that in situations where the same person is abused sexual over a years bonds can form there too?

Do only properly married Catholic couples get to enjoy true unitive and procreative sex?

What about before Marriages was elevated to a sacrament? Was it possible for married couples to have unitive sex then?

How about people through no fault of there own have not found the Church and are living there lives as loving married couples in the secular world, do they get the unitive aspect?

 

[thewanderer]

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.”

Debora, I really don’t see how this quote says what you want it to. The reason given in this quote is that rape is an act of force and violence. It then goes on to mention that this (force and violence) is unlike conjugal love in marriage which is given freely.

While thiss doesn’t definitively answer the question one way or the other as to the ‘conjugal act’ refering to acts only within marriage or not, it does show that the reason given here has nothing to do with marriage (perhaps you should keep in mind that rape can happen even within marriage) but instead with the fact that the act was an act of force and violence.

 

[Debora123]

You disagree that it is possible for bonds and pregnancy to happen in fornicating couples?

Do you disagree that in situations where the same person is abused sexual over a years bonds can form there too?

Do only properly married Catholic couples get to enjoy true unitive and procreative sex?

What about before Marriages was elevated to a sacrament? Was it possible for married couples to have unitive sex then?

How about people through no fault of there own have not found the Church and are living there lives as loving married couples in the secular world, do they get the unitive aspect?

I think I’ve made my position quite clear. I disagree that fornication is called to have a moral obligation to be procreative/unitive… since fornication/rape/prostitution are already disordered acts.

I also don’t agree that the act of sex is automatically unitive. Sex is only unitive when it is a complete self gift to another person within a marital relationship. Fornication already makes the act NOT unitive by default.

And I definitely don’t agree with your stance about there being a unitive aspect in rape.

As for procreative, well, I don’t think using a condom when you’re having sex with a prostitute makes the sin of fornication even worse.

 

[Debora123]

Debora, I really don’t see how this quote says what you want it to. The reason given in this quote is that rape is an act of force and violence. It then goes on to mention that this (force and violence) is unlike conjugal love in marriage which is given freely.

While thiss doesn’t definitively answer the question one way or the other as to the ‘conjugal act’ refering to acts only within marriage or not, it does show that the reason given here has nothing to do with marriage (perhaps you should keep in mind that rape can happen even within marriage) but instead with the fact that the act was an act of force and violence.

I’m not trying to make it say anything. Merely pointing out the link that is mentioned specifically between marital relations and unity/procreation.

 

[mommamaree]

Debora,
Have I somehow made it onto your ignore list? I haven’t seen you respond to any of my posts that were addressed to you. Maybe I missed something. I have been very interested in this discussion you started, but I have noticed you aren’t replying to my posts to you. What happened?

 

[Debora123]

You disagree that it is possible for bonds and pregnancy to happen in fornicating couples?

Of course it’s possible, but that doesn’t mean that fornication MUST be morally ordered towards unity/procreation. Since fornication is not a moral act to begin with, and is already, by default, putting sex outside of it’s rightful context.

Do you disagree that in situations where the same person is abused sexual over a years bonds can form there too?

Sure, but as I said before, I believe “unity” to be more than just a chemical induced emotional bong. I believe unity to be a loving self gift within a marital relationship. You can be married and still have sex that is not unifying if you’re doing it out of selfish reasons than out of love and self gift for your spouse.

Do only properly married Catholic couples get to enjoy true unitive and procreative sex?

Procreation can happen, but I believe unitive sex can only happen between married couples, since the sacrament of matrimony creates a spiritual bond between the couple. You’re seeing “unitive” as just being an emotional attachment to someone. I see it differently. Fornication is not a self gift… it is not "unifying… it is sinful.

What about before Marriages was elevated to a sacrament? Was it possible for married couples to have unitive sex then?

If a couple is in an invalid marriage, then they are not married in the eyes of the Church, and sex would be fornication. As I have stated earlier, I don’t believe fornication is called to be unitive or procreative. It is just called to stop.

How about people through no fault of there own have not found the Church and are living there lives as loving married couples in the secular world, do they get the unitive aspect?

A couple can still have a valid marriage even if they were not married in the Church.

 

[Debora123]

Debora,
Have I somehow made it onto your ignore list? I haven’t seen you respond to any of my posts that were addressed to you. Maybe I missed something. I have been very interested in this discussion you started, but I have noticed you aren’t replying to my posts to you. What happened?

No, you are not on my ignore list. I am sorry.

What post(s) do you want me to respond to?

If I don’t respond to a post, it isn’t necessarily because I’m “ignoring you”… but because I probably have already given my opinion and don’t have much left to say.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not trying to make it say anything. Merely pointing out the link that is mentioned specifically between marital relations and unity/procreation.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

You wrote this:

Originally Posted by Debora123 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*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.”*
**

in response to this:
Originally Posted by LJN21 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*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/article…on/re0566.html
**
Which to me makes it sound as though what you are trying to claim is that the reason that EC is allowed is given as being precisely because the people involved were not married. Which is not at all what that particular quote is saying.
*

 

[Debora123]

Which to me makes it sound as though what you are trying to claim is that the reason that EC is allowed is given as being precisely because the people involved were not married. Which is not at all what that particular quote is saying.

No, I don’t think the entire reason EC is allowed is because they are not married, but I believe it to be part of it, since I don’t think fornication of any sort is morally ordered towards procreation and unity.

 

[thewanderer]

No, I don’t think the entire reason EC is allowed is because they are not married, but I believe it to be part of it, since I don’t think fornication of any sort is morally ordered towards procreation and unity.

I did not mean to claim that you think it is the entire reason. My point was simply that the argument you gave for it being one of the reasons was this particular quote, which, while it does link unity and procreation with marital activity does not give this link as a reason why EC is allowed. That is why I said you seemed to be reading what you wanted into this quote. This quote does not say that one of the reasons EC is allowed is because unity and procreation are only naturally a part of marital relations, rather, it says that the reason EC is allowed is because the act involved, rape, is violent and forced.

To be honest, the fact that rape can happen within marraige seems to make it impossible for the being married to be the factor that makes all the difference as to the validity of EC. According to the reasons presented in this particular passage of the CCC there is no reason to prevent those technically married from receiving EC when raped by their husbands. The CCC is not, at least not here, presenting an argument for marriage being the cause of the sinfulness of ABC’s.

 

[LJN21]

Of course it’s possible, but that doesn’t mean that fornication MUST be morally ordered towards unity/procreation. Since fornication is not a moral act to begin with, and is already, by default, putting sex outside of it’s rightful context.

Yes, it is already pulling the marital act out of marriage. However, I don’t see how you can take that make the leap that contraceptives that cause an abortion don’t make it worse. My point is the act is already ordered to unity and procreation. To people living together in sin still have a bond for each other and could get pregnant. Its our choice to frustrate it or not regardless of our marital state.

Sure, but as I said before, I believe “unity” to be more than just a chemical induced emotional bong. I believe unity to be a loving self gift within a marital relationship. You can be married and still have sex that is not unifying if you’re doing it out of selfish reasons than out of love and self gift for your spouse.

Why is it not a chemical induced emotional bond? When you have a baby the hormones after words are what helps you bond to your child. When you have sex the chemicals help you bond to your spouse. Yes of course you get more out of it when the act is loving and unselfish but that not required or it to attempt to happen anyway. A woman that has no want for her child still bonds in some way to it after its born.

Procreation can happen, but I believe unitive sex can only happen between married couples, since the sacrament of matrimony creates a spiritual bond between the couple. You’re seeing “unitive” as just being an emotional attachment to someone. I see it differently. Fornication is not a self gift… it is not "unifying… it is sinful.

I don’t see how sin has an relevance on the action being unifying or not. Sacramental Marriage only happens inside the Church, yes it creates a spiritual bond but not a physical one. There are still many many couples outs the Church that are physcial bonded to each other via sex.

If a couple is in an invalid marriage, then they are not married in the eyes of the Church, and sex would be fornication. As I have stated earlier, I don’t believe fornication is called to be unitive or procreative. It just called to stop.

Agian, I don’t see looking around the world at the number of people in a loving yet sinful relationship how you could honestly hold this position.

 

[Debora123]

I did not mean to claim that you think it is the entire reason. My point was simply that the argument you gave for it being one of the reasons was this particular quote, which, while it does link unity and procreation with marital activity does not give this link as a reason why EC is allowed. That is why I said you seemed to be reading what you wanted into this quote. This quote does not say that one of the reasons EC is allowed is because unity and procreation are only naturally a part of marital relations, rather, it says that the reason EC is allowed is because the act involved, rape, is violent and forced.

To be honest, the fact that rape can happen within marraige seems to make it impossible for the being married to be the factor that makes all the difference as to the validity of EC. According to the reasons presented in this particular passage of the CCC there is no reason to prevent those technically married from receiving EC when raped by their husbands. The CCC is not, at least not here, presenting an argument for marriage being the cause of the sinfulness of ABC’s.

Rape is never ordered towards unity/procreation. Whether it is done in a marriage or not.

I think what it comes down to is that we’re disagreeing on the definition of “unity.” To me, unity is the love/self gift part of it. Since fornication/rape/prostitution are sinful, they are never a loving/self giving act. Thus, they are not a unitive act.

As for mine/your interpretation of that #2 reason, eh… we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Debora123]

However, I don’t see how you can take that make the leap that contraceptives that cause an abortion don’t make it worse.

I’ve clarified earlier that such would only be the case if the contraceptive was not abortifacient.

 

[LJN21]

Lets try this a different way. Why is fornication wrong?

 

[Debora123]

Yes, it is already pulling the marital act out of marriage. However, I don’t see how you can take that make the leap that contraceptives that cause an abortion don’t make it worse. My point is the act is already ordered to unity and procreation. To people living together in sin still have a bond for each other and could get pregnant. Its our choice to frustrate it or not regardless of our marital state.

Why is it not a chemical induced emotional bond? When you have a baby the hormones after words are what helps you bond to your child. When you have sex the chemicals help you bond to your spouse. Yes of course you get more out of it when the act is loving and unselfish but that not required or it to attempt to happen anyway. A woman that has no want for her child still bonds in some way to it after its born.

I don’t see how sin has an relevance on the action being unifying or not. Sacramental Marriage only happens inside the Church, yes it creates a spiritual bond but not a physical one. There are still many many couples outs the Church that are physcial bonded to each other via sex.

Agian, I don’t see looking around the world at the number of people in a loving yet sinful relationship how you could honestly hold this position.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here. I’ve said all I have to say and have stated my opinion and explained it multiple times in multiple different ways. At this point we’re just going around in circles and have been for a while now. I simply don’t agree with your view on this. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Debora123]

Lets try this a different way. Why is fornication wrong?

Because sex is meant to be a loving, self giving act between 2 people who have been bound together by God in marriage… the purpose of sex is to show their love and lifelong commitment to each other by giving each other their own bodies(a), and to bring new children into a family with a mother and father.(b)

a. Which would be a lie to each other if they are not married and therefore not giving each other their bodies for life

b. Unmarried people are not “a family” suited to bring children into

 

[LJN21]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here. I’ve said all I have to say and have stated my opinion and explained it multiple times in multiple different ways. At this point we’re just going around in circles and have been for a while now. I simply don’t agree with your view on this. Sorry if that upsets you.

No I’m not upset in the slightest. I just fear you have jump through some hoops to see how avoiding pregnancy in this situation and not in others is o.k. and have made an opinion that is theologically wrong. In years of study I’ve never heard someone put up the idea that the martial act is only the martial act inside the bounds of marriage, and some how if your not married it changes the fundamental nature of the act. It goes against everything I know of the Theology of the Body, the Church Fathers, the CCC, natural law… the whole works. Now its possible I’m wrong, I’m perfectly willing to admit I might be. Currently I’m trying to find something with some authority to back up either position. Unfortunately 3/4 of what I’m finding on sexual mortality is by Ron Conte or other lay people.

 

[Debora123]

No I’m not upset in the slightest. I just fear you have jump through some hoops to see how avoiding pregnancy in this situation and not in others is o.k. and have made an opinion that is theologically wrong. In years of study I’ve never heard someone put up the idea that the martial act is only the martial act inside the bounds of marriage, and some how if your not married it changes the fundamental nature of the act. It goes against everything I know of the Theology of the Body, the Church Fathers, the CCC, natural law… the whole works. Now its possible I’m wrong, I’m perfectly willing to admit I might be, but in the last couple hours of attempting to find out either way. Currently I’m trying to find something with some authority to back up either position. Unfortunately 3/4 of what I’m finding on sexual mortality is by Ron Conte or other lay people.

You don’t need to “fear” for me. I’m married anyway. And since I strongly believe in saving sex for marriage, it’s not like I’d go up to someone and say “hey, you know what? just use contraception… since you’re not married anyway, it’s ok!” The only thing I would have to say to people who are fornicating, is “stop fornicating!”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Lets try this a different way. Why is fornication wrong?

I know you mean Debora, but I’d like to answer the way my college Theology professor explained to our class… it’s been a bit, so I might be rusty…

The sex act is the act the God uses to cooperate with us (we cooperate with Him actually) to make little people.

Because the act may result in a baby ( a new human life in the image of God) the only charitable scenario for the baby is to have it’s parents united in a marriage. (Natural or Sacramental)

The sex act is very holy, that extramarital relations can be compared to defilement of a holy object. Because the sex act is so holy, contraception can also be compared to defilement of a holy object. This is also the reason because rape is evil. It defiles the holiness of sexuality.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No I’m not upset in the slightest. I just fear you have jump through some hoops to see how avoiding pregnancy in this situation and not in others is o.k. and have made an opinion that is theologically wrong. In years of study I’ve never heard someone put up the idea that the martial act is only the martial act inside the bounds of marriage, and some how if your not married it changes the fundamental nature of the act. It goes against everything I know of the Theology of the Body, the Church Fathers, the CCC, natural law… the whole works. Now its possible I’m wrong, I’m perfectly willing to admit I might be. Currently I’m trying to find something with some authority to back up either position. Unfortunately 3/4 of what I’m finding on sexual mortality is by Ron Conte or other lay people.

May I suggest reading John C. Ford, if you are able to find him (his book Contemprary Moral Theology is out of print sadly.)

Also, try Dietrich Von Hildebrand, or even John Kippley. I find their works to be very helpful.