If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

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.

No, I never said that. I don’t even know what you mean, quite honestly.

 

[Debora123]

Ppphhhttttt…bwahahahahahaha!

Lol…

PS - The funny part is that I actually wrote that BEFORE I read your message.

 

[Nate13]

No, I never said that. I don’t even know what you mean, quite honestly.

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.

Hmm I thought I followed your logic and you seemed to treat these two ideas as two separate things.

Here’s my summation of your statement above as I’m reading it: “Fornication is disordered and is not morally called to be done in a unitive and procreative manner.” or in an even more basic form “evil acts are not morally called to be done in a good manner”.

I’m really confused by the use of “morally called”. It almost seems like your saying God doesn’t make any rules about how to go about committing evil acts.

 

[Debora123]

Hmm I thought I followed your logic and you seemed to treat these two ideas as two separate things.

Here’s my summation of your statement above as I’m reading it: “Fornication is disordered, and thus is not morally called to be unitive and procreative.” or in an even more basic form “evil acts are not morally called to be done in a good manner”.

I’m really confused by the use of “morally called”.

Huh??

The only way fornication could be “done morally” is if it weren’t fornication at all! Do you know what the meaning of fornication is? It’s premarital sex. There is no moral way to have premarital sex because premarital sex is wrong.

I’m not really sure what exactly you’re trying to say here.

I am sorry my post confused you, but I was as clear as I could possibly be, and I don’t know how much more clearly I can say what I said.

 

[Nate13]

Huh??

The only way fornication could be “done morally” is if it weren’t fornication at all! Do you know what the meaning of fornication is? It’s premarital sex. There is no moral way to have premarital sex because premarital sex is wrong.

I’m not really sure what exactly you’re trying to say here.

I am sorry my post confused you, but I was as clear as I could possibly be, and I don’t know how much more clearly I can say what I said.

yeah lets just leave it as I got lost somewhere along the way of reading your post

 

[Debora123]

yeah lets just leave it as I got lost somewhere along the way of reading your post

 

[LJN21]

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.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

The reason they are disordered is not because they separate the unitive and procreative. They are disordered because sexuality is reserved for marriage. (natural *or *sacramental)

I think that “unitive” is being thought of as being more complex than it actually is. Unity has to do with the “act.” Not the feelings associated with the act.

For example, I know a woman who has been married for over 50 years. For her (as she has told me) sexuality was something she did to make her husband happy. For whatever reason she never developed that bonded “feeling”. They do have a sacramental marriage, though and have accepted children lovingly.

If the “feelings” of bonding lacked, does that mean that they separated unitive from procreative?

I recently saw a swan family in the pond near my home, and made me think of this thread.

Mother Swan, Father Swan and three cygnets. Obviously mother and father mated to get the cygnets. The act between them could be said to be unitive and procreative (birds don’t contracept). Birds also cannot “marry” or think of sexuality in a rational way. But when they mate it is ordered towards procreation and it is unitive. Swans mate for life, so there must be a bond there.

We are human. Sexuality for us is significantly more important because instead of a cygnet, we procreate humans. That is why sexuality is meant to be expressed only in marriage. 2 unmarried people are biologically capable of “uniting” and “procreating”. They don’t separate the two. The lack of marriage makes it disordered.

 

[Debora123]

The reason they are disordered is not because they separate the unitive and procreative. They are disordered because sexuality is reserved for marriage. (natural *or *sacramental)

I think that “unitive” is being thought of as being more complex than it actually is. Unity has to do with the “act.” Not the feelings associated with the act.

For example, I know a woman who has been married for over 50 years. For her (as she has told me) sexuality was something she did to make her husband happy. For whatever reason she never developed that bonded “feeling”. They do have a sacramental marriage, though and have accepted children lovingly.

If the “feelings” of bonding lacked, does that mean that they separated unitive from procreative?

I will agree with this part.

 

[kbwall]

Only marital relations are required to be open for life.

 

[Corki]

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.

Of couse not. Procreative and unitive are the ends of the marriage act and aren’t part of the reality or definition of non-marital sex.

Since the topic of this thread was contraception, I would like to loop that back in.

Even though there is no requirement for fornication or rape to be unitive and ordered to procreation, it is not correct to say that the use of contraception is somehow valid or a non-issue. The use of contraception is not morally neutral. That would imply that its use can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. It’s always bad. The sin of contraception doesn’t go away just because the couple is not married. The best way I can think of putting it is that the sin of contraception is ‘overshadowed’ by the sin of fornication or rape.

 

[LJN21]

Only marital relations are required to be open for life.

Well, one should only be having martial relations. However, contraception suddenly not a sin anymore because someone having sex out side of marriage.

 

[Debora123]

I’m really confused by the use of “morally called”. It almost seems like your saying God doesn’t make any rules about how to go about committing evil acts.

Ok, let me give this another shot now that I’ve slept lol.

By saying that marital sex is “morally called” to be unitive/procreative, I meant that marital sex must be unitive/procreative in order to be a moral act. That’s why the Church teaches that if you have contracepted sex with your spouse, or if you have selfish sex with your spouse, the act becomes sinful… because it is morally called, it has moral requirement to be both unitive/procreative.

However, any sort of sex outside of marriage, fornication/prostitution/rape, doesn’t have those same moral requirements… as in, don’t have any type of requirements that would make those acts moral.

Those acts are disordered and immoral in themselves, and the only moral requirement we have in regards to those acts is to just not commit them at all.

There is no moral way to have sex outside of marriage because sex outside of marriage is already automatically gravely wrong due to the fact that it is happening outside of marriage.

Can you at least understand what I’m saying now?

 

[Debora123]

Of couse not. Procreative and unitive are the ends of the marriage act and aren’t part of the reality or definition of non-marital sex.

Since the topic of this thread was contraception, I would like to loop that back in.

Even though there is no requirement for fornication or rape to be unitive and ordered to procreation, it is not correct to say that the use of contraception is somehow valid or a non-issue. The use of contraception is not morally neutral. That would imply that its use can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. It’s always bad. The sin of contraception doesn’t go away just because the couple is not married. The best way I can think of putting it is that the sin of contraception is ‘overshadowed’ by the sin of fornication or rape.

It sounds like you’re contradicting yourself. Saying one thing in the first half of your post, and then switching over on the second half.

 

[Debora123]

Only marital relations are required to be open for life.

 

[Corki]

It sounds like you’re contradicting yourself. Saying one thing in the first half of your post, and then switching over on the second half.

No contradiction at all.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Ok, let me give this another shot now that I’ve slept lol.

By saying that marital sex is “morally called” to be unitive/procreative, I meant that marital sex must be unitive/procreative in order to be a moral act. That’s why the Church teaches that if you have contracepted sex with your spouse, or if you have selfish sex with your spouse, the act becomes sinful… because it is morally called, it has moral requirement to be both unitive/procreative.

However, any sort of sex outside of marriage, fornication/prostitution/rape, doesn’t have those same moral requirements… as in, don’t have any type of requirements that would make those acts moral.

Those acts are disordered and immoral in themselves, and the only moral requirement we have in regards to those acts is to just not commit them at all.

There is no moral way to have sex outside of marriage because sex outside of marriage is already automatically gravely wrong due to the fact that it is happening outside of marriage.

Can you at least understand what I’m saying now?

I see what you are trying to say.

But at the same time a teen-age guy going to buy the morning after pill for his girlfriend because he slept with her doesn’t come across as a moral act to me…or a morally neutral act.

I see it as further corruption of the sex act. He had sex with her without being married, and he wants no strings attached on top of it.

Gosh, I did some searching on my family tree. My great grand parents were married in November and then had a baby the following May.

They at least attempted to correct their premarital relations by marrying and accepting the baby.

 

[Portrait]

…Then why is it morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill? (given no fertilization has taken place)

From what I understand, when an act is intrinsically evil, it means that the act is ALWAYS wrong. No matter who what where when why.

If that’s the case, then why is it morally permissible to contracept against a rapist? (given no harm is being done to an already fertilized egg if one is present)

Dear Debora123,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Notwithstanding the horror and tragedy of rape or incest, dear sister, it is not considered by our Church as a legitimate cause to kill an innocent unborn life.

If it is at all possible, however, a woman is at liberty to seek treatment as a matter of urgency so as to try and prevent conception occuring immediately following rape or incest. Moral theologians and doctors say that after carnal relations it takes some time for the male seed to pass through the vagina and the uterus and enter the Fallopian tubes, where it may unite with an ovum to begin a new life. Now unless and until those two cells join, there is clearly no human cell and thus no human life. Therefore, in the case of rape a vaginal or uterine douche may be used in an attempt to flush out the male sperm* before* it has a chance to unite with an ovum. There appears to be a consensus that this might be done up to about an hour after the attack. It is not an abortive measure since, as I said, there is no human life yet present. If the woman delays too long then, of course, conception may occur and any procedure or treatment to eject the unviable human embryo is an abortion and contrary to the law of Holy Mother Church.

The position of our Church is that whilst the woman is an innocent victim of a horrible evil, that is to say rape or incest, the unborn child is also a victim - something that is apt to be forgotten nowadays. Irrespective of the circumstances that resulted in conception, once conceived, that precious child has an immortal soul and has an equal right to life as much as the mother. In any event, dear sister, the greater percentage of abortions throughout much of the world have nothing to do with rape.

God bless and trust that is of some help.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here’s an analogy: You miss mass. That’s a mortal sin. Next week, for some unknown reason (doesn’t matter what it is, it’s a hypothetical) you absolutely could not go to reconciliation before mass. You go to mass and receive the Eucharist.

By the logic we’re using on this thread why are we even making taking the Eucharist after mass another mortal sin? After all, you’re already in mortal sin, so what’s the difference?

 

[Debora123]

I see what you are trying to say.

But at the same time a teen-age guy going to buy the morning after pill for his girlfriend because he slept with her doesn’t come across as a moral act to me…or a morally neutral act.

I too agree that it would be wrong in this case because the morning after pill can be antifacient. However, I don’t think it would have been extra sinful if they had used a barrier method while fornicating, since I don’t think fornication is morally called to be procreative. I don’t think anyone here is saying that doing so would be moral, just that it would be a moot point.