I have to admit…I just don’t get it. There are plenty of circumstances where the act is objectively not procreative. Cut-and-dry examples would be 80-year-old couples, a woman with ovaries/uterus removed to cancer, etc. I don’t understand how something can be objective procreative and objective not procreative at the same time.The Church has no teaching that an overt intention to conceive must be present in order to engage in the marital embrace. It teaches that each time we *choose *to engage in the marital embrace, it must be in conformity to the way God designed it-- which is fully unitive and fully procreative, in an objective manner. This would translate to an unaltered, completed act of intercourse.
The act is always objectively procreative. Level of fertility is not a deciding factor. The act must be OPEN to life, it doesn’t require life to be created.I have to admit…I just don’t get it. There are plenty of circumstances where the act is objectively not procreative. Cut-and-dry examples would be 80-year-old couples, a woman with ovaries/uterus removed to cancer, etc. I don’t understand how something can be objective procreative and objective not procreative at the same time.
The problem with this position is that “infertile” and non-procreative are not the same.I have to admit…I just don’t get it. There are plenty of circumstances where the act is objectively not procreative. Cut-and-dry examples would be 80-year-old couples, a woman with ovaries/uterus removed to cancer, etc. I don’t understand how something can be objective procreative and objective not procreative at the same time.
It is objectively procreative it is a completed act of vaginal intercourse. That is how God designed intercourse.I have to admit…I just don’t get it. There are plenty of circumstances where the act is objectively not procreative. Cut-and-dry examples would be 80-year-old couples, a woman with ovaries/uterus removed to cancer, etc. I don’t understand how something can be objective procreative and objective not procreative at the same time.
I don’t follow how permanent infertility is subjective.It is subjectively infertile if the person engaging in the act is infertile to disease, defect, injury, or natural cycle in life.
It’s simple.I have to admit…I just don’t get it. There are plenty of circumstances where the act is objectively not procreative. Cut-and-dry examples would be 80-year-old couples, a woman with ovaries/uterus removed to cancer, etc. I don’t understand how something can be objective procreative and objective not procreative at the same time.
Thank you, even as someone just converting, this seems so obvious to me.It’s simple.
We are not to thwart God’s design for the marital act. Period.
I don’t think so.I said even on those safe days there is a chance.However its considered an unnatural act to have emission at anytime other than in the act of intercourse.Haven’t you contradicted yourself by saying that “Emissions are never allowed without the chance of procreation”, and then saying that emissions during intercourse on days where there is no chance of procreation is acceptable… because it’s natural?
Which is it? Natural or chance of procreation?
Do you remember the bible saying"its better to put your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground"?it was clearly implying that your seed is not to be wasted.This verse along with others have led to the agreement that it is unnatural to have emission outside of intercourse.Contraception is no different.Its a waste of seed.This is not the basis of the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil. It has nothing to do with sperm emmissions or “wasting” them.
What the Church does teach is that each act of intercourse, to be properly ordered, must be *objectively *both unitive and procreative. This means it is ordered to both, and these elements cannot be separated. Contracepted acts and other types of acts that are not completed acts of vaginal intercourse render the act objectively disordered.
An marital act between permanently infertile couples is not procreative…period. Arguing that an act between such as couple is both unitive and procreative is nonsensical.It’s simple.
We are not to thwart God’s design for the marital act. Period.
One must also take in mind that NFP’s intent in instrumental sense is destruction of semen. The whole idea is to take the sperm out of woman’s body before it can do it’s role in the natural process.Muze,
I understand how this confuses you. I think it should. I find it rediculous to think that someone can call it “objective” when the INTENT is to prevent pregnancy. Sure, it’s possible, but the fact is that people are using it as a way to NOT GET pregnant.
So couples must only be intimate during fertile periods/ or be ignorant of when fertile periods are?An marital act between permanently infertile couples is not procreative…period. Arguing that an act between such as couple is both unitive and procreative is nonsensical.
A martial act between fertile couples, with full knowledge that they are doing so during an infertile period with the intent to avoid having children, is ordered toward not being procreative…period.
I personally find the details justifying NFP extremely disconcerting. IMHO, it should be argued in a natural law context, with the contradictory and/or nonsensical details left out.
I really have found the terminology “unitive and procreative” to have too many technicalities. Couples must not thwart God’s design for sex.An marital act between permanently infertile couples is not procreative…period. Arguing that an act between such as couple is both unitive and procreative is nonsensical.
Don’t know many nfp’ers do ya?A martial act between fertile couples, with full knowledge that they are doing so during an infertile period with the intent to avoid having children, is ordered toward not being procreative…period.
Me too. It is defended so rigorously that Catholics often times give the impression that it is justifiable in any way a couple wants to use it.I personally find the details justifying NFP extremely disconcerting.
I’d dare to say that we have changed in practice what was concluded in Church documents. Several reasons for that.I really have found the terminology “unitive and procreative” to have too many technicalities. Couples must not thwart God’s design for sex.
Don’t know many nfp’ers do ya?
Me too. It is defended so rigorously that Catholics often times give the impression that it is justifiable in any way a couple wants to use it.
Just in case it hasn’t been mentioned on this thread, Catholics should use nfp only for grave reasons.
What makes a marital act between permanently infertile couples non-procreative? The ACT is still procreative even if the bodies are defective and can’t produce.An marital act between permanently infertile couples is not procreative…period. Arguing that an act between such as couple is both unitive and procreative is nonsensical.
The act may be natural and ordered the way God intended it, but it is objectively and absolutely NOT procreative in nature. If one can’t beget/conceive, they can’t procreate.The ACT is still procreative even if the bodies are defective and can’t produce.
Why are you changing the meaning of proceative?The act may be natural and ordered the way God intended it, but it is objectively and absolutely NOT procreative in nature. If one can’t beget/conceive, they can’t procreate.
Every definition I’ve ever seen for “procreation” is along the line of “to beget and conceive,” “to reproduce,” etc.Why are you changing the meaning of proceative?
Procreative, with respect to Catholic moral teaching, is not the same as infertile.
Until you make this distinction your are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation and your claim is invalid.