Lets define PROCREATIVE - once and for all

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Debora123

Guest
When debating the church’s view on contraception, it seems like the argument always boils down to a few terms that apparently mean something different than what Webster tells us.

These terms are the following:

Procreative, and open to procreation.

Procreative - pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.
  1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
  2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.
    thefreedictionary.com/procreative
Procreation -
noun
As you can see, the definition of these terms are quite clear. These very definitions can be used to ask some valid questions about the ban on contraception. Yet when done so, some claim they mean something different. Accusations get thrown around that we are using “our” definition of these words but not the Church’s.

I think it would help us all come to a closer understanding of the teaching against artificial contraception if these terms are defined once and for all.

Thank you. 👍
 
Thanks for posting the definitions. I think where I’ve seen the most confusion is where the Church teaches that the marital act must be “ordered per se to” procreation.
 
Thanks for posting the definitions. I think where I’ve seen the most confusion is where the Church teaches that the marital act must be “ordered per se to” procreation.
That’s where the confusion starts. I, as well as others who post these definitions, get told they are not the “catholic” definitions. And use that to argue their stance without actually giving the Catholic definition.
 
Thanks for posting the definitions. I think where I’ve seen the most confusion is where the Church teaches that the marital act must be “ordered per se to” procreation.
No problem. Sex was created to have kids, ok?
Any problem?
Yes, there is with the definition of the WHO, which definition does not include the word “reproduction”. Sex is for everything but to have kids. Look for it.
Now, the Catholic Church.
I think that Sex was med by God to have kids, though not always you’ve got kids. Some people desire so much and have sex morning, midday and night and cannot have them. Nevertheless, even in these cases, sex was made to have kids. Sometimes you go to an apple tree and in the season of harvesting, you do not find even an apple.
Planes, cars and ships were design to transport people, but if you see one of them stopped you do not say that sometimes they were designed to stop.The stops were designed to refuel, take out the sewer and in the food so that the travel be more comfortable.

Teachers were designed to teach but you do not say, when seeing one in vacation, that they were designed to be in vacations. Vacations help them think and relax and gain strength for a profitable new school year.

Sex is the same. It is just put kids out ans leave them to fend for themselves like the fish do (lucky fish! do not have half our trouble and do not discuss this!). 20 years of nurturing is what you get for a sexual act.

But, as birds make their nests, you need to build your nest for the kids, and one of the things that they need ia a papa and a mumma and they may be together. And for that, sex helps to keep the bonds, even though there are no kids from that particular act.

We even find in animals that not all sex acts lead to procriation.
 
Webster is the a Theological dictionary. It really does not terribly matter what an English dictionary says…and certainly it is is not going to define anything once and for all.

As to contraception…Here is a nice succinct source from the Church (issued by Pope Benedict XVI)
  1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?
2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.
  1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
  1. When is it moral to regulate births?
2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
  1. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

And of course the teaching regarding Contraception is not an open matter for discussion anyhow.
 
The Church is using procreation in the commonly understood sense. What is misapprehended here is not the “procreation” part but the “ordered per se” part, which stems from a misapprehension of natural law.

I posted this on another thread specifically with regards to homosexual “marriage” but it is applicable here. Hopefully that will clarify the issue:
For everything that exists in nature, there exists a more perfect “form” or “essence” or “nature” in which it is said to “participate” or “instantiate.” For example, the essence of a triangle is to be a closed-plane shape consisting of three straight lines. Anything with this essence has a number of properties that follow logically from it, such as having three angles that sum to 180 degrees. It is possible for a thing to participate imperfectly in an essence; for instance, if I hastily scrawl a triangle on a sheet of paper on a bumpy surface with a worn-down crayon, it is likely to have non-straight lines and thus angles that sum to something other than 180 degrees. We would not say that such a shape is not a triangle, even though it clearly does not live up to that essence. We would simply say it’s a “bad” triangle.

The badness of the triangle is not an arbitrary judgment; it is an objective fact, arising from the nature of what a triangle is and what it means to be triangular. (The nature of the triangle is an objective fact, too; we didn’t make up the definition I provided above, we discovered it).

Man, too, has an essence. For instance, it’s appropriate for me to say “human beings have two legs.” Obviously I’m not talking about each and every human being alive. Rather, I’m talking about human beings in principle. We recognize that being born with only one leg is a birth defect for precisely that reason; it cannot be a defect unless it is a failure to instantiate the essence of something.

The same principle, applied to human behavior, furnishes a basis for morality. We have various faculties; these faculties point to an end; goodness therefore consists in using our faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends, and evil in using them for some contrary purpose. For instance, we have reason; reason points toward the end of discerning truth; therefore it is good to discern truth and bad for us to, say, invent and disseminate falsehoods.

Our sexual faculty points to the end of procreation. We know this because the sexual act concludes with the emission of semen, and the emission of semen causes pregnancy (ed.: that is, procreation is the end which the emission of semen serves, not love or unity). Humans have the distinct genital configuration they do because it maximizes the possibility of conception, and we have a strong sex drive so that we will have sex often and therefore maximize the possibility of conception, and it is very easy to get pregnant during a woman’s fertile period so as to maximize the possibility of conception, and so on. If our sexual faculty points to the end of procreation, and if goodness consists in using our faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends, then it is good to have sex in a manner that is conducive to procreation and not good (evil, sinful, etc.) to have sex in a manner contrary to the end of procreation. Hence the Church’s prohibition on contraception, sodomy, masturbation, etc.
This is important: for the sexual act to be “ordered per se” toward procreation simply means that sex is had in a manner that is consistent with the end of procreation – hence, that concludes (for the man, at least) in intravaginal ejaculation.
 
When debating the church’s view on contraception, it seems like the argument always boils down to a few terms that apparently mean something different than what Webster tells us.

These terms are the following:

Procreative, and open to procreation.

Procreative - pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.
  1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
  2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.
    thefreedictionary.com/procreative
Procreation -
noun
As you can see, the definition of these terms are quite clear. These very definitions can be used to ask some valid questions about the ban on contraception. Yet when done so, some claim they mean something different. Accusations get thrown around that we are using “our” definition of these words but not the Church’s.

I think it would help us all come to a closer understanding of the teaching against artificial contraception if these terms are defined once and for all.

Thank you. 👍
Now, I am no expert on this topic whatsoever, but here is my opinion. I think that these definitions are very clear and very accurate but what they tend to leave out is the spiritual definition (or what some people may call the ‘Catholic definition’). What I mean by this is, I believe an infertile husband and wife can still be procreative in the spiritual sense. When they come together in union, their act may not be “conceiving and bearing offspring”, but their act is still conceiving and bearing spiritual fruits. Because the marital act is such a Holy one, God gives special graces and gifts of the spirit to those who are committed to performing this act in the way it was intended. Those spiritual fruits are in a sense, their “offspring”. These fruits (i.e. love, patience, selflessness, etc.) spill over into every aspect of their lives and affect others. So with this in mind, offspring can mean “life”, in a sense that it is not a new human life, but it is love for others and patience for others which is very life giving.

Also, with God all things are possible. It is not uncommon for an “infertile” couple to conceive. If they are being open to life, “procreative”, God can allow a child to come forth from that act if that is his will. I think that as long as a couple is not doing anything to their ability to prevent life when having intercourse, then that act is procreative and open to procreation. The rest is being left up to God to either produce offspring of a new human kind or to produce offspring of a live-giving virtuous kind.

Hope this made sense. Let me say again, I am no expert… just a faithful Catholic searching for truth.
🙂
 
When debating the church’s view on contraception, it seems like the argument always boils down to a few terms that apparently mean something different than what Webster tells us.

These terms are the following:

Procreative, and open to procreation.

Procreative - pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.
  1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
  2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.
    thefreedictionary.com/procreative
Procreation -
noun
As you can see, the definition of these terms are quite clear. These very definitions can be used to ask some valid questions about the ban on contraception. Yet when done so, some claim they mean something different. Accusations get thrown around that we are using “our” definition of these words but not the Church’s.

I think it would help us all come to a closer understanding of the teaching against artificial contraception if these terms are defined once and for all.

Thank you. 👍
Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

PROCREATION. Begetting children. It is a formal term for generation and stresses the role of marital intercourse with the intention of producing offspring. (Etym. Latin procreare, to beget.)

PROCREATIVE LOVE. The selfless love of husband with wife for the potential offspring God may wish to give them as the “procreation” of marital intercourse. This love is procreative because it evokes the creative act of God, who requires their cooperation to bring a new human being into the world.
 
Procreative means ‘favouring creation’ in official Catholic resources like the Catechism or encyclicals. It’s not necessarily in opposition to secular definitions, just a more literal use of the term.

Why do you want to define ‘open to procreation’? I doubt it’s ever been used in any official Catholic teaching, do you find it’s a phrase that gets tossed around on CAF?

Another challenge is getting people to see how contracepted sex doesn’t favour creation but uncontracepted, infertile sex does. Good luck to all of us with that one, right?!

Good thread idea. 👍
 
Why do you want to define ‘open to procreation’? I doubt it’s ever been used in any official Catholic teaching, do you find it’s a phrase that gets tossed around on CAF?
Yes mam. Open to procreation, or even more so, open to life. Those get used a lot. 👍
Another challenge is getting people to see how contracepted sex doesn’t favour creation but uncontracepted, infertile sex does. Good luck to all of us with that one, right?!
Haha, yes. I’ve heard responses and read books, etc etc. None of which makes much sense. It’s definitely a tough one!
 
From Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:
PROCREATIVE LOVE
The selfless love of husband with wife for the potential offspring God may wish to give them as the “procreation” of marital intercourse. This love is procreative because it evokes the creative act of God, who requires their co-operation to bring a new human being into the world.
Mission Accomplished! =)
 
Thanks for this definition. According to this quote, procreative means there is potential for offspring, am I correct?
I would think so (but I what I think probably is of little use in Church Doctrine). A procreative act has potential for offspring. The Church definition, however, would be that a procreative act is an act that is “ordered per se to” procreation.

So then, an act “ordered per se to” procreation would be an act that utilizes all the faculties of procreation (the male and female parts) and the completion of that act in the natural form (male seed into the proper female part) wihtout using some barrier (contraceptive) or withdrawal. If that is met, each act evaluated as an individual act, then the act is “ordered per se to” procreation regardless of whether or not procreation is possible or acheived.

That is why it is okay to intercourse during pregancy, outside the normal fertile period, etc… As long as each act is “ordered per se to” procreation, it need not result in procreation in order to be “ordered per se to” procreation.

As far as planning an act around a period of time when procreation is more likely or less likely, the Church apparently does not see that as taking an act outside of that procreative state, as long as each individual act remians “ordered per se to” procreation.

I believe the Pope clarified this for us. (Refer to the Pope’s explanation that Bookcat posted.)
 
I would think so (but I what I think probably is of little use in Church Doctrine). A procreative act has potential for offspring. The Church definition, however, would be that a procreative act is an act that is “ordered per se to” procreation.

So then, an act “ordered per se to” procreation would be an act that utilizes all the faculties of procreation (the male and female parts) and the completion of that act in the natural form (male seed into the proper female part) wihtout using some barrier (contraceptive) or withdrawal. If that is met, each act evaluated as an individual act, then the act is “ordered per se to” procreation regardless of whether or not procreation is possible or acheived.

That is why it is okay to intercourse during pregancy, outside the normal fertile period, etc… As long as each act is “ordered per se to” procreation, it need not result in procreation in order to be “ordered per se to” procreation.

As far as planning an act around a period of time when procreation is more likely or less likely, the Church apparently does not see that as taking an act outside of that procreative state, as long as each individual act remians “ordered per se to” procreation.

I believe the Pope clarified this for us. (Refer to the Pope’s explanation that Bookcat posted.)
Ah, I see. Thanks!

So when people around here say the act must be procreative, what they should really be saying is the act must be ordered per so to procreation? Are they then incorrect in their use of the term?

Also, you speak of the faculties of procreation as having to be present for the act to be ordered per se to procreation. Is the egg not considered a “faculty of procreation?” Because we all know the egg is not present when we use NFP to avoid pregnancy, and we specifically and purposely have sex ONLY on the times that we know that this certain faculty of procreation (egg) is not present.

If anyone could answer this, it’d be great. Thanks again! 🙂
 
Ah, I see. Thanks!

So when people around here say the act must be procreative, what they should really be saying is the act must be ordered per so to procreation? Are they then incorrect in their use of the term?

Also, you speak of the faculties of procreation as having to be present for the act to be ordered per se to procreation. Is the egg not considered a “faculty of procreation?” Because we all know the egg is not present when we use NFP to avoid pregnancy, and we specifically and purposely have sex ONLY on the times that we know that this certain faculty of procreation (egg) is not present.

If anyone could answer this, it’d be great. Thanks again! 🙂
No. If being ordered per se’ towards procreation= sex at ovulation (egg present), than all relations that did not occur at ovulation would be illicit.

Each act has to be ordered per se’ towards procreation. If ovulation is a variable of the meaning of “ordered per se towards procreation”, then any act during infertile times would be illicit, any act during pregnancy, any act during menopause.

A few posters have used the logic that if one does not know it’s infertile, then it’s fine. We all know that a post menopausal woman is infertile, yet the Church has never banned relations for them.
 
No. If being ordered per se’ towards procreation= sex at ovulation (egg present), than all relations that did not occur at ovulation would be illicit.

Each act has to be ordered per se’ towards procreation. If ovulation is a variable of the meaning of “ordered per se towards procreation”, then any act during infertile times would be illicit, any act during pregnancy, any act during menopause.

A few posters have used the logic that if one does not know it’s infertile, then it’s fine. We all know that a post menopausal woman is infertile, yet the Church has never banned relations for them.
I understand. 👍

However, we are speaking here of purposely having sex only when we know the egg is not there, and going through great lengths to figure out exactly when that is. I can understand a case where a woman is naturally sterile or past menopause. But doing it on purpose is another matter.

So then was ahs’ definition of ordered per se towards procreation incorrect? Because according to him/her, “ordered per se towards procreation” means all faculties must be present. Something you have just ruled out by saying the egg need not be present. :confused:

Thanks for you time. 🙂
 
Ah, I see. Thanks!

So when people around here say the act must be procreative, what they should really be saying is the act must be ordered per so to procreation? Are they then incorrect in their use of the term?
Like I said, that’s just my thoughts, and my thoughts are of little use in matters of Church Doctrine. The only thing I can say for sure is that each person should make an effort to understand what procreation means to the Church. I think the Church spells that out pretty clear, but it is in several paragraphs worth of reading. It is not a simple definition. For example, the Pope’s explanations that Bookcat posted…there’s alot of information there realted to procreation and being procreative or being “ordered per se to” procreation. Combine that with the Cathechism and the various encyclicals…the clear explanation is there, but it is not a simple sentence or two.
Also, you speak of the faculties of procreation as having to be present for the act to be ordered per se to procreation. Is the egg not considered a “faculty of procreation?” Because we all know the egg is not present when we use NFP to avoid pregnancy, and we specifically and purposely have sex ONLY on the times that we know that this certain faculty of procreation (egg) is not present.

If anyone could answer this, it’d be great. Thanks again! 🙂
Again, that’s just my thoughts. From what the Church teaches, it appears that the faculties for procreation are the organs, in their entirety, without having been manipulated by chemical means, physcial removal or alteration, or barriers placed upon them. So, whether the egg is present or not doesn’t matter unless the egg was purposefully manipulated/removed by chemical or physical means, or a barier was placed upon it.

The egg is not present during ANY sexual act that is engaged in outside of ovulation, regardless of whether a person is using NFP or not.

I have not seen any Church teaching so far that condemns the timing of sexual intercourse. I’m willing to search, though…can you point me to a good starting point?

And again, I think the Church has spelled this out clearly for us, but it is not a simple sentence or two. Look again at what the Pope says in Bookcat’s post…and that is just a brief summary.
 
I understand. 👍

However, we are speaking here of purposely having sex only when we know the egg is not there, and going through great lengths to figure out exactly when that is. I can understand a case where a woman is naturally sterile or past menopause. But doing it on purpose is another matter.

So then was ahs’ definition of ordered per se towards procreation incorrect? Because according to him/her, “ordered per se towards procreation” means all faculties must be present. Something you have just ruled out by saying the egg need not be present. :confused:

Thanks for you time. 🙂
Ahs’ definintion seems like a good one to me, and one the Church would agree with.

Again if we were to include having an egg present to mean ordered toward procreation, than anytime a woman is infertile those relations would be “disordered” towards procreation. The Church does not teach that.

An example of proof that the Church does not teach that is Biblical would be the parents of John the Baptist.

Zacharia and Elizabeth were intimate, despite the fact that they were infertile. Zachariah was shocked when told about John the Baptist’s existance. The bible describes them as being impeccable in their relationship with God.

Irrespective to what some say, the Church is consistant with Her teachings.
 
Ah, I see. Thanks!

So when people around here say the act must be procreative, what they should really be saying is the act must be ordered per so to procreation? Are they then incorrect in their use of the term?

Also, you speak of the faculties of procreation as having to be present for the act to be ordered per se to procreation. Is the egg not considered a “faculty of procreation?” Because we all know the egg is not present when we use NFP to avoid pregnancy, and we specifically and purposely have sex ONLY on the times that we know that this certain faculty of procreation (egg) is not present.

If anyone could answer this, it’d be great. Thanks again! 🙂
No, an egg is not a faculty. Properly understood a faculty refers to a person’s innate ability to act toward a particular end. My feet are not a faculty, but my ability to run is.

As I said previously, what matters is that one uses their faculties in a manner consistent with their end.

There is nothing wrong with electing to be continent for a time, and that’s all that is relevant here. So long as the sexual act (when one elects to have sex) conforms to the *telos *of the sexual faculty, it is morally licit.

Basically the Church teaches that NFP *in itself *is not illicit. It is possible to have sex using NFP in a fashion that is illicit, though, for instance, because one wills not to have children for disordered reasons.
 
However, we are speaking here of purposely having sex only when we know the egg is not there, and going through great lengths to figure out exactly when that is. I can understand a case where a woman is naturally sterile or past menopause. But doing it on purpose is another matter.
I think the deal with NFP is that it would be hard to say that having knowledge makes something wrong that would otherwise be right. Knowledge or lack thereof can reduce one’s culpability for sin, and presumably can reduce the praiseworthiness of right action, but I don’t think it can change one into the other.

Women are sometimes fertile and sometimes not. Marital sex is morally acceptable during either period. Marital abstinence is likewise morally acceptable during either period. If that were not so, then the Church would be requiring people to use some form of NFP to ensure that they only had sex during fertile times, which She obviously does not and never has.

The only thing that using NFP adds to the equation is the conscious knowledge of which time is which. That knowledge cannot change a morally acceptable act (either marital sex or marital abstinence) into a morally unacceptable one.

The Church does not require couples to have every possible child they can have. A couple may abstain for a time if a pregnancy or another child would be too burdensome. And a couple may use knowledge of women’s fertility to time that abstention and make sure it is no longer than it needs to be.

The only thing that a couple may not do is have an act of intercourse that has been deliberately altered from its procreative end.

Usagi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top