Marital, unitive, procreative

[John21652]

You have blurred the line of *deliberate *will verses *permissive *will. They are not interchangeable.

God *permitted *the conception because he designed the reproductive act to do what it does. But he did not *deliberately *will the conception. By saying that God “permits” something it is to clarify that nothing is a surprise to God. In God’s perfect (deliberate) will, we all exist as the perfect souls he creates. His permissive will is what makes our free will possible. In the case of rape He has not divinely intervened against free will or the design of the body. The *person *conceived is perfect and sinless. The situation surrounding the conception is tainted by sin. He *permits *sin. He does not desire it.

There is a HUGE difference between God’s deliberate will vs. God’s permissive will. Blurring the line leads to things like IVF, condoms, and eugenics.

Thanks Little Deb!
And well writ.

 

[Lauds]

Well mate, you need a new priest and a new book, is all I can say…

God permits evil for the greater good that comes out of it. I choose to believe my priest in all things, or I might as well just give it up, maybe just quit the Catholic Church. There would not be 50% of babies born out of wedlock if the Lord didn`t permit it. The Lord is the creator, & he knew us from the time the earth was formed, when we were all a twinkle in his eye eons ago, he even knew our names

 

[John21652]

God permits evil for the greater good that comes out of it. I choose to believe my priest in all things, or I might as well just give it up, maybe just quit the Catholic Church. There would not be 50% of babies born out of wedlock if the Lord didn`t permit it. The Lord is the creator, & he knew us from the time the earth was formed, when we were all a twinkle in his eye eons ago, he even knew our names

God put us on this Earth to exercise our free will. We can use it for good, or for evil. God is not “permitting” evil, he is allowing us to use our free will and it is we and we alone who permit evil to enter our lives, our communities and our society.

Do you honestly believe that God, through his Church, would have given us the sacrament of marriage, along with certain rules and strictures, then will into existence that which breaks his own morality?

“The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.” Catechism of the Holy Church Article 7/1

There would not be 50% of babies born out of wedlock if God took greater control over how we use our free will. But then it wouldn’t be free will, would it?!

Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. Catechism of the Holy Church Article 3/1

Notice how it says “…on one’s own responsibility”? We are given freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibilities, as we are told here -

Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, “the subject of this freedom,” is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth. Catechism of the Holy Church, Article 3/2

Now this next bit is very important, so read it carefully, please…

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. Catechism of the Holy Church Article Article 4/2

It clearly tells us that “One may not do evil so that good may result from it” It is unequivocal.

You are telling us that God permits evil because of the good that may come of it. That is in direct contradiction to the word of God himself. The passage above tells us what evil acts are, adultery, fornication, etc. The 50% of babies born outside wedlock are because people misuse their free will and the end result is a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

Now take a walk through your own society and witness the single parent families who are under great stress because of the misuse of free will, or of the breakdown in relationships across the nation because people are not living according to the laws and strictures of God and his Church. Study your history books and understand that the problem of moral discord has been growing and growing as secularisation of our society increases and people turn away from the morality of God’s word. When you are told that God allows evil because of the greater good that will come out of it, you are being taught to rationalise away the misuse of free will.

Now, don’t turn away from the Church, as you suggested in your post. One Priest is not the Church. Delve deeper and seek other counsel and I’m sure God will open your eyes. Maybe that’s why you are here in the first place…?

Cheers.

 

[LittleDeb]

God permits evil for the greater good that comes out of it.

Again, close but not quite. I get the sense that your priest is probably saying things correctly, but you are misunderstanding him.

God permits evil, correct. But He does not permit it *for *any greater good. He alone can *bring *good after evil. But the evil did NOT have to happen for the good result. Even though He knew us before we were formed, we still have the free will to choose not to sin.

The way you express it is very close to Mormon belief. They hold that the Fall was a “necessary evil,” to bring about certain blessings. You are expressing fornication as a “necessary evil” so that certain people are conceived. Absolutely incorrect. God is better than that. His deliberate will is perfect. There are no catch-22s in it.

 

[LittleDeb]

God put us on this Earth to exercise our free will. We can use it for good, or for evil. God is not “permitting” evil, he is allowing us to use our free will and it is we and we alone who permit evil to enter our lives, our communities and our society.

Do you honestly believe that God, through his Church, would have given us the sacrament of marriage, along with certain rules and strictures, then will into existence that which breaks his own morality?

There would not be 50% of babies born out of wedlock if God took greater control over how we use our free will. But then it wouldn’t be free will, would it?!

Notice how it says “…on one’s own responsibility”? We are given freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibilities, as we are told here -

Now this next bit is very important, so read it carefully, please…

It clearly tells us that “One may not do evil so that good may result from it” It is unequivocal.

You are telling us that God permits evil because of the good that may come of it. That is in direct contradiction to the word of God himself. The passage above tells us what evil acts are, adultery, fornication, etc. The 50% of babies born outside wedlock are because people misuse their free will and the end result is a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

Now take a walk through your own society and witness the single parent families who are under great stress because of the misuse of free will, or of the breakdown in relationships across the nation because people are not living according to the laws and strictures of God and his Church. Study your history books and understand that the problem of moral discord has been growing and growing as secularisation of our society increases and people turn away from the morality of God’s word. When you are told that God allows evil because of the greater good that will come out of it, you are being taught to rationalise away the misuse of free will.

Now, don’t turn away from the Church, as you suggested in your post. One Priest is not the Church. Delve deeper and seek other counsel and I’m sure God will open your eyes. Maybe that’s why you are here in the first place…?

Cheers.

Excellent answer.

One quick thing though. He **is **permitting evil. It couldn’t exist without His permission. But you are also correct in saying that He is allowing us to use our free will and it is we who have made the evil.

Again, it is the difference between His deliberate will and His permissive will. One is His plan for us. The other is Him *allowing *us our own plan that is contrary to His.

 

[baylee]

You are welcome! The Song of Solomon is one of the most beautiful expressions of sexual pleasure ever written in the history of mankind.

I stand firmly with the Catholic Church on the sanctity of marriage, abortion, end of life and homosexuality issues. But on certain matters, these self appointed authorities often overstep the bounds of moral guidance and good sense.

Nowhere in the Bible can one find such obsessive, legalistic intrusion on the physical intimacy that is to be shared between a husband and wife of faith. Sex is being treated as a necessary evil. One must wonder how many god fearing catholics experience shame and guilt as a result of the physical pleasure they might have experienced immediately after or even during sex.

There seems to be this no-win situation when it comes to the physically pleasurable aspect of sex. One look through these forums is proof that many good people are suffering terribly with an unhealthy fixation on all of the sexual legalism that has been set up by celibate clergymen to the point where there is no room left for pleasure that the Almighty has designed into our sexual being.

Catholic Authors like Popcak and Christopher West can say what they want, but sexual legalism is always there lurking in the background. A Hatian father of 9 hungry children spends ten days digging in the rubble of the earthquake looking for survivors is tired but wants to be with his wife tonight. If he uses a condom he commits mortal sin? It’s all a bit creepy.

FiberZilla…sexual legalism…it’s as if you’ve read my mind. I have struggled over and over with this topic and I am much closer to accepting the fact that my husband and I are not bad Catholics for how we share our love and please one another in our marital bed.

 

[Lauds]

Excellent answer.

One quick thing though. He **is **permitting evil. It couldn’t exist without His permission. But you are also correct in saying that He is allowing us to use our free will and it is we who have made the evil.

Again, it is the difference between His deliberate will and His permissive will. One is His plan for us. The other is Him *allowing *us our own plan that is contrary to His.

Nothing happens in the universe without God willing & allowing it. Nothing occurs by chance, in the whole course of our lives is the unaminous decision of the fathers & Doctors of the Church, & God intervenes everywhere. I am the Lord there is none else, I form light & create darkness, I make peace & create evil, I the Lord do all things, It is I who bring both life & death, It is I who inflict wounds & heal them. Good things & evil life & death, poverty & riches are from God

 

[Ron_Conte]

Are you suggesting that your theological argument is A) completely in keeping with the Church’s teaching; B) inconsistent with the Church’s teaching, that is to say, more conservative than the Church’s current teaching; or C) addresses a nuanced area that the Church does not address?

Not B, and Not C.
Yes, A.
But I think A would be better phrased as: the correct understanding of the clear and definitive teaching of the Magisterium on the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.

Theology teaches from Tradition and Scripture and Magisterium.
Theology is not merely an exposition of what the Magisterium teaches.

However, on this particular point, the teaching of the Magisterium is explicitly stated:
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the **unitive **significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

The teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor on the moral object is also very clear. An act with an evil moral object cannot become good by being used for a good purpose, such as to prepare for natural marital relations. The end does not justify the means.

Non-procreative sexual acts, i.e. unnatural acts, have an evil moral object, and so they do not become moral by being done for a good intention, or in dire circumstances. Nor does any evil act become moral by being done before, during, or after another good act. These are basic principles of the eternal moral law, and they do not become null and void within the marital bedroom.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron: never once on any post in my 5+ years on these fora have I ever stated that an oral or manual act to climax is moral.

Are you aware that West and others state that such acts to climax are moral for the wife after natural marital relations? Do you disagree with that position?

I have devoted the last 17 years to the study of this *one *topic.

Have you written any theology on this topic?

 

[Ron_Conte]

FiberZilla…sexual legalism…it’s as if you’ve read my mind. I have struggled over and over with this topic and I am much closer to accepting the fact that my husband and I are not bad Catholics for how we share our love and please one another in our marital bed.

The marital bed is not exempt from the moral law.

 

[baylee]

The marital bed is not exempt from the moral law.

Any legalistic, Pharisaical type law is not moral. These discussions always remind me of this:

*Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. *

 

[baylee]

Are you aware that West and others state that such acts to climax are moral for the wife after natural marital relations? Do you disagree with that position?

At least you are consistent Ron. I have questioned this position over and over again here (as it relates to masturbation being a grave sin always), but I always get the response that it is somehow different because of the circumstances (within marriage,etc).

Isn’t this position based on JPII’s commentary (the often referenced TOB)? If so, is it the Church’s position or isn’t it? And if it is, then how can anyone say this doesn’t contradict other teachings? And if it does contradict, then how is this not saying that things are different within marriage (without actually saying it)?

 

[PaulinVA]

Little Deb can take care of herself, but I can’t help jumping in…

Are you aware that West and others state that such acts to climax are moral for the wife after natural marital relations? Do you disagree with that position?

Yes. Christopher West with that Imprimatur that you lack said this. So did an author named Korol Wojtyla. But, they clarified that it was as part of an correctly-completed act of martial relations.

Have you written any theology on this topic?

No, Ron. Neither of us has written any theology approved by the Church.

 

[Lauds]

Ron dont need any help, he has it together along with being a DEVOUT Catholic. You Cant back him down:thumbsupEvout, not lukewarm, he doesn`t twist & turn the religion to suit himself. I am not scholarly like Ron is, But I admire him. We need more Catholics like Ron:thumbsup:

 

[LittleDeb]

Are you aware that West and others state that such acts to climax are moral for the wife after natural marital relations? Do you disagree with that position?

Since women are capable of more than one orgasm in the context of regular marital relations, your stance is ridiculous. To which climax are you referring? Her second one, third one or perhaps she is allowed only one? Ideally a couple will have no need of a female climax apart from vaginal penetration. But some couples struggle to get their cycles of arousal and climax fully synchronized. It is best when the climax occurs simultaneously. Our late Holy Father said it was an act of virtue when spouses are attentive to their differing climactic rise and fall and seek union of it. (Particularly for males who generally have an earlier climax.)

But as to if it is moral or not: If she has not reached *her *peak it is still foreplay for her. It isn’t “after” marital relations. It is still in the *context *of marital relations. It is after *his *ejaculation. Pray tell, what is the effect the *female *climax has on procreation? Answer: none. Unnatural acts are defined as acts that are against the *design *of the body. The body is not designed to be contraceptive. It is contraceptive acts that are unnatural. *That *is what the ECF were writing against. The sole purpose of a contraceptive act is to receive pleasure while frustrating the natural design.

Here is a basic lesson in sexual biology, Ron. In both sexes climax (or orgasm) occurs in the brain. This is when the bonding hormone oxytocine is released. In males, physical ejaculation of semen occurs simultaneously with orgasm. They are separate events that are tied together in timing, by the *design *of the male body. The female’s orgasm has nothing whatsoever to do with our ability to reproduce. We can still have an orgasm without a uterus. A male, cannot have an ejaculation without the complementary organ, the prostate. The jury is still out if they can have an *orgasm *without a working prostate.

The whole point of Catholic teaching is that a *contraceptive *act is not a natural act!! If it is ordered towards creation *within *the natural design, it is by definition, a natural act!

Have you written any theology on this topic?

I don’t hold a degree in theology, nor do I want one. To paraphrase the wonderful theologian, Dr. Peter Kreeft from your very own BC, “I am convinced that the best way to truly misunderstand Church teaching requires one to be an academic.”

I am more of an apologist. Have I had anything published? Not yet. I don’t have time. I am a wife to a wonderful husband and the mother to small children. But for anyone who might be interested in my writing, please pray that I will someday be called to sit down and actually get it completely written. It is always in the works. The only thing holding me back is the footnotes. I hate making footnotes and citing my sources. I always got graded down in high school and college for bad footnotes. But I know they are completely necessary. My journal and my blog are enough for me for now. (And I got a plug from Patrick Madrid on my blog! :yyeess

…Wait, what was the point of the question?

 

[LittleDeb]

Little Deb can take care of herself, but I can’t help jumping in…

Yes. Christopher West with that Imprimatur that you lack said this. So did an author named Korol Wojtyla. But, they clarified that it was as part of an correctly-completed act of martial relations.

No, Ron. Neither of us has written any theology approved by the Church.

Your posts are awesome too!

 

[Bookcat]

Are you aware that West and others state that such acts to climax are moral for the wife after natural marital relations? Do you disagree with that position?

it is NOT really after marital relations…for it is still in the context of the marital act…even if it is after the husband (which must be while in sexual union with his wife…)

yes – Karol Wojtla (to be…John Paul II) has written that this can take place after the husband’s … in his book Love and Responsibility.

and yes West says too.

as do others such as Grisez…

and yes it is within the orthodox Catholic theology that it is the case that within the context of the marital act …the wife …may reach this point during foreplay…during actual union…or even right after the husband…

For it is all within the context of the “moral unity” of the “marital act.” Only the husband’s needs to be only with the actual physical union…for this is the way things are ordered.

 

[FiberZilla]

The marital bed is not exempt from the moral law.

Your posts have taken the simple act of lovemaking between man and woman and shackled it with an intellectual mishmash of oppressive, legalistic restrictions that read the US tax code leaving absolutely no room for playfulness, spontaneity, intense physical pleasure and passion that is essential for that deep one on one bond that married couples are supposed to enjoy.

How many good men out there are unable to soak in and enjoy the physical beauty of their unclothed wife as she climbs into bed because they are afraid to “violate the rules”? How many women are unable to become aroused, let alone enjoy a climax because of the fear and anxiety this legalism and list checking generates? God didn’t right these rules Ron, You did!

With all due respect Ron, I’ll let scripture determine what the moral law is regarding sexuality. Referring back to the Song of Solomon, the Bible treats our sexuality as something to be cherished as beautiful, highly anticipated, extremely pleasurable and very exciting. You treat it as if it was something dirty but necessary.

 

[FiberZilla]

FiberZilla…sexual legalism…it’s as if you’ve read my mind. I have struggled over and over with this topic and I am much closer to accepting the fact that my husband and I are not bad Catholics for how we share our love and please one another in our marital bed.

God Bless you baylee: I might add that sexual pleasure was not given to us strictly as motivation to reproduce. It’s incredible explosiveness and intensity was given for us to savor, soak in and share. It is one of the key things that bonds us to the one husband or wife that we spend our earthly life with.

 

[FiberZilla]

I would really like to discuss this with you more in depth in another thread if you are interested. You make many good points and I at one time would have agreed with every single bit.

But I ask you to roll an idea around and get back to me if you want to discuss it another thread. What if the use of condoms is the “legalism” and the marriage act really is destroyed with them?

Psalm 127:3-5 says children are gifts from God and the man who has many of them is blessed. Children raised in a godly way will influence the world for the better and for God’s glory.

Condoms can be used for evil and selfish purposes. To me, the couple who practices any form of birth control strictly they don’t want to sell the Corvette are not seeking the will of God. Abortive forms of birth control are tantamount to murder.

However, nothing in scripture prohibits the couple who marries later in life, perhaps after the age of 40 from using non-abortive birth control rather than risk a dangerous pregnancy. They are really likely using good moral judgement. There are also people who feel as if they would not make good parents. Consider as well married people who are suffering with addictions, physical or mental health issues.

This would also apply to younger couples who with to delay childbearing for a time until they are more financially stable or have reached the number of children that they feel their family is complete.

I hope this explains my position somewhat.