MrIrish:
You should have stopped at the first sentence, because I can’t get past it.
Sorry!
MrIrish:
You are using the words “objective” and “subjective” in ways I am not familiar, but of course I do see the difference between using an artificial method to avoid pregnancy and using a natural method.
Objective and subjective are not related to “natural” and “artificial”.
Ok, think of it this way: objective is the God’s Eye view of the world.
Example:
Objectively, in the God’s Eye view of the world, homosexual sex is sinful-- every single act, no matter what. It’s gravely immoral It’s disordered, and against the Natural and Divine Law.
Subjectively, the human point of view or result, any specific act may not be sinful when a person engages in it because they may lack full knowledge or full consent-- both requirements to be a mortal sin. The person may be misinformed, habitually or culturally numbed to the gravity of the act.
So, while objectively a particular thing has specific characteristics, subjectively it may not.
So, objectively every sex act is procreative because that’s what God created sex to be-- procreative. Subjectively, an act may not result in conception because it’s infertile or it’s purposely sterilized.
A purposely sterilized act of intercourse directly attacks the act and changes it from the way God ordered. It is not objectively procreative (the way God made it) nor is it subjectively fertile.
A naturally infertile act of intercourse does not change the way God designed it. Therefore it is
objectively procreative (the way God made it) and subjectively infertile.
MrIrish:
I also see that they both have the same consequence - no conception.
Right.
MrIrish:
I understand that the Church teaches that artificial means of avoiding conception are wrong, but natural ones are OK, provided sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy exists.
Not exactly. It’s not “natural” versus “artificial”. It’s contracepted ssex acts versus non-contracepted sex acts, or contraceptive versus unaltered sex act.
MrIrish:
What I don’t understand is why timing intercourse to avoid conception does NOT pervert the marital act.
Ok, there are two things every married couple does: abstain from or engage in sex.
Let’s say out of 28 days, a couple abstains 20 days and have sex on 8 days.
Each of the 20 days they abstain, they have not perverted the sex act because they are not having sex. Abstaining is not wrong, as there is no positive command from God to have sex each and every day. A couple might abstain for any number of reasons: busy, tired, out of town, fertile, sick… whatever. But, abstaining doesn’t pervert any sex act because there is no sex act to pervert.
Each of the 8 days they do have sex they don’t pervert the sex act because they have sex as God created it-- unaltered-- a completed act of vaginal intercourse.
Compare that to a contracepting couple who abstains 20 days and has sex 8 days. On the days they abstain-- for whatever reason, tired, out of town, busy… etc-- they are not perverting the sex act because they aren’t having sex. BUT, on the 8 days they do have sex, they
are perverting the act because they have
altered, incomplete sex through chemicals, barriers, or failure to complete the act (withdraw, masterbate, etc).
MrIrish:
Perhaps you could first define what you mean by “procreative”. I think that would help me.
Procreative intercourse is a completed act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Completed means, sperm deposited into the woman, and no action taken to render the act sterile. “The way God created it.”
MrIrish:
Webster’s defines “procreate” as “to beget or bring forth offspring.” Clearly, a couple having relations during naturally infertile periods is seeking to avoid the bringing forth of offspring. Hence, they are not procreating.
A specific act of intercourse may or may not result in
procreation (conception). Each act is
procreative because the act itself is the method by which procreation happens.
MrIrish:
What am I missing? These definitions are plain as day to me. Sex outside the fertile time cannot be procreative since procreation/reproduction/conception cannot occur. I’m still confused.
I’ll think about it because I really don’t know of a better way to explain it than I have above.
It’s procreative in its meaning and its actions, independent of any result of the act. You are saying it can’t be procreative because it doesn’t result in conception.
:ehh: ??
