Open to procreation when procreation is impossible

[KSU]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

 

[thistle]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

Do you mean impotent or infertile or what?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

I suggest examples from the Bible of people such as Abram & Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth & Zacchariah, who were presumed to be infertile, too old, etc. who had children after many years of being childless. God works in mysterious and sometimes funny ways–and the name Issac means, “he laughs.”

I don’t quite understand what you mean about explaining to them the requirement for “open to life”. Are they suggesting that couples thought to be infertile should use contraception? Or do they not understand that infertile couples can be open to life–sometimes more open than fertile couples. Some people through, no fault or action of their own, are unable to bear children. Do your Protestant friends not understant that these couples following God’s will for marriage by accepting all the children God sends them–even if He sends them none?

 

[1ke]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

Each act of intercourse is objectively procreative if it is unaltered. It reaches its natural end (sperm received into the woman). That any individual act does not result in conception in no way negates the procreative element as it exists objectively. The couple has taken no action to render the act of intercourse sterile. It is naturally so, whether by age, defect, etc. It is sterile, but it remains procreative because it is **ordered **to procreation. It is ordered in the manner God created it and unaltered.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that Abraham and Sarah were open to procreation though it was impossible; similarly Elizabeth and Zachariah.

 

[KSU]

Do you mean impotent or infertile or what?

Let’s take the example of a 68 year-old woman who, as a result of surgery to remove life-threatening cancer, no longer is able to conceive. Not even in her tubes.

QUOTE=gardenswithkids;4767390] Are they suggesting that couples thought to be infertile should use contraception? Or do they not understand that infertile couples can be open to life–sometimes more open than fertile couples. QUOTE]

Contraception as such is not an issue in my question, which, again, is: What is the basis of the Church requirement for abstinence from married sex, save for traditional “open to procreation” sex, in a case where the woman, after cancer surgery, is medically unable to procreate. I say God gives married couples the gift of sex for two reasons, not just for the single reason of procreation, so they say: “Upon what rational does the Catholic Church say the unitive reason ( which my friends contend includes, for example, mutual masturbation) may not be enjoyed where the possibility of procreation is absent through no fault of the married couple?”

1ke, your answer is that traditional intercourse can be sterile naturally, but that it remains procreative because it is ordered to procreation and therefore must not be avoided during sex. Yes, of course, that’s a given, but it gets me nowhere. Why–upon what basis–is that the position of the Church? It’s not directly Bible-based, or revealed directly by God, so what is the rational? Must I resort to the truth that you and I accept (i.e., Peter says so and he is infallible) or is there an answer that could be understood from reason alone?

Note that Abraham and Sarah were open to procreation though it was impossible;

That God works miracles gets us nowhere in my debates on this topic. I’m looking for the basic Church rational. Besides, Abraham was given concubines.

 

[1ke]

Contraception as such is not an issue in my question, which, again, is: What is the basis of the Church requirement for abstinence from married sex, save for traditional “open to procreation” sex, in a case where the woman, after cancer surgery, is medically unable to procreate. I say God gives married couples the gift of sex for two reasons, not just for the single reason of procreation, so they say: “Upon what rational does the Catholic Church say the unitive reason ( which my friends contend includes, for example, mutual masturbation) may not be enjoyed where the possibility of procreation is absent through no fault of the married couple?”

1ke, your answer is that traditional intercourse can be sterile naturally, but that it remains procreative because it is ordered to procreation and therefore must not be avoided during sex. Yes, of course, that’s a given, but it gets me nowhere. Why–upon what basis–is that the position of the Church? It’s not directly Bible-based, or revealed directly by God, so what is the rational? Must I resort to the truth that you and I accept (i.e., Peter says so and he is infallible) or is there an answer that could be understood from reason alone?

Well, if you use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail you are misusing the screwdriver. That is not what it is made for. The fact that you can hammer a nail with a screwdriver doesn’t change the fact that it’s a misuse of the screwdriver.

You can use your sexual faculties for masterbation, but that is not what God designed the sexual embrace for. Anything less than the full marital embrace profanes the Sacrament.

Your protestant friends lack the understanding of what a Sacrament is, let alone the renewal of the Sacrament through intercourse-- at which God is present. Ephesians 5 tell us how marital relations should be between the Bride and Bridegroom-- totally self-giving and totally-life giving… every time. Christ and his Church are the reality, marital sex is the earthly sign of that relationship. Would you choose something less than full unity with Christ?

 

[Dameedna]

Considering the statistics behind NFP and condom usage, it would seem that using condoms is more likely to create life.

The reason you struggle to explain all teachings in this area is because it is not correct. It does not make sense, not because of a misunderstanding or “god being a mystery”. It doesn’t make sense, because it is wrong.

It can be negated according to natural law, ad-nausiem and the church can only fall back to it’s view that this is Gods law revealed and if you question the church you question God.

Yes, sex can be harmful. So can many other things.

To say that sex between a couple that is scientifically proven to be infertile some-how invites life is nonsense. To suggest a woman who would die with another pregnacy should never have the bonding experience with her husband, is cruel.

But a desire to believe in absolutes, the black and white(simple) view of the world is strong. The strength to not challenge a church view comes from laziness about making moral decisions. We want everyone else to tell us right or wrong.

The churches view on sex, is very obviously, not natural.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… **What is the basis of the Church requirement for abstinence from married sex, save for traditional **“open to procreation” sex, in a case where the woman, after cancer surgery, is medically unable to procreate. I say God gives married couples the gift of sex for two reasons, not just for the single reason of procreation, so they say: “Upon what rational does the Catholic Church say the unitive reason ( which my friends contend includes, for example, mutual masturbation) may not be enjoyed where the possibility of procreation is absent through no fault of the married couple?”
…

Infertile married couples may enjoy married sex the way God designed married sex. They don’t have to abstain from married sex–they have to abstain from immorality, just like the rest of us. Infertility does not give anyone license to perform unnatural sex acts.

Do you have an old dictionary? If not, find one and look up the word “sodomy”. My old Webster’s Collegiate dictionary includes with second the definition of this word "2. noncoital and esp anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. (Look up what coital is if neccesary too. That’s what they refer to as “traditional” sex.) Ask your friends if sodomy is acceptable–they will most likely say no, then pull out an old dictionary with the traditional definition of sodomy. They likely have no idea that what they propose falls within the definition of the word “sodomy.”

Words, words, words. Those who wish to change values usually start by changing the meaning of words. Non-coital relations is not acceptable in Catholic morality because it is a form of sodomy. When “non-traditional sex” becomes acceptable to Christians within “traditional marriage”, is it any wonder we now have to modify the word marriage with the word “traditional” to clarify that we are talking about the union of a man and woman?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Considering the statistics behind NFP and condom usage, it would seem that using condoms is more likely to create life.

The reason you struggle to explain all teachings in this area is because it is not correct. It does not make sense, not because of a misunderstanding or “god being a mystery”. It doesn’t make sense, because it is wrong.

It can be negated according to natural law, ad-nausiem and the church can only fall back to it’s view that this is Gods law revealed and if you question the church you question God.

Yes, sex can be harmful. So can many other things.

To say that sex between a couple that is scientifically proven to be infertile some-how invites life is nonsense. To suggest a woman who would die with another pregnacy should never have the bonding experience with her husband, is cruel.

But a desire to believe in absolutes, the black and white(simple) view of the world is strong. The strength to not challenge a church view comes from laziness about making moral decisions. We want everyone else to tell us right or wrong.

The churches view on sex, is very obviously, not natural.

And, just because you say something doesn’t make it true…and just because you don’t believe something doesn’t make it false.

You need to go back and read 1ke’s post because she explained it well. Perhaps a reading of Pope John Pauls Theology of the Body or even just the Catholic Catechism would give you a good basis on what the Church teaches and why…

 

[mark_a]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

I’d guess that you are familiar with the standard Catholic response that “before 1930, no denomination taught that contraception was ok” and its not getting you anywhere.

My signature below links to the teachings of the original reformers about being open to procreation, just like Catholics.

This link: ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php shows where the Catholic teaching actually comes from Jewish Tradition and we see nowhere in the bible where Jesus changed this teaching.

Here is a chance to show the importance of tradition in Catholic Church teaching instead of turning a blind eye to it.

 

[mark_a]

To suggest a woman who would die with another pregnacy should never have the bonding experience with her husband, is cruel.

Assume for a moment that the Church is wrong about exceptions to contraception as in your exaample above, rape, incest, or whatever.

That still leaves as the vast majority people who contracept for selfish reasons.

The churches view on sex, is very obviously, not natural.

Does this statement include adultery, forication, homosexuality, self gratification, beastiality, etc.?

 

[mark_a]

bump

 

[Good_Daughter]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

Catholicism doesn’t require that the marital embrace always be “open” to procreation but rather “ordred” toward procreation. There is a difference.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Considering the statistics behind NFP and condom usage, it would seem that using condoms is more likely to create life.

Probably true, but Catholic married couples are under no obligation to create life unless they’ve determined the time is right.

The reason you struggle to explain all teachings in this area is because it is not correct. It does not make sense, not because of a misunderstanding or “god being a mystery”. It doesn’t make sense, because it is wrong.

Can you articulate why Catholicism teaches couples to keep the marital embrace procreative? I’d love to hear you state, in detail, the Catholic position against which you argue so strongly.

It can be negated according to natural law, ad-nausiem and the church can only fall back to it’s view that this is Gods law revealed and if you question the church you question God.

I have trouble grasping the natural law argument. Would you explain it to me?

The Church has no need to “fall back” on anything. God (and the Church) can handle questions.

Do you know the reasons behind “God’s law revealed”? (Check 1ke’s last post if you’re unsure.)

Yes, sex can be harmful. So can many other things.

Agreed.

To say that sex between a couple that is scientifically proven to be infertile some-how invites life is nonsense. To suggest a woman who would die with another pregnacy should never have the bonding experience with her husband, is cruel.

From a Catholic point of view, sex doesn’t have to give “new” life in order to be life-giving. Your second statement is accurate except that married couples themselves are free to choose abstinence as the only 100% effective pregnancy prevention. Even if they don’t choose complete abstinence, no Catholic couple with serious reason to avoid pregnancy is required to be open to new life.

But a desire to believe in absolutes, the black and white(simple) view of the world is strong. The strength to not challenge a church view comes from laziness about making moral decisions. We want everyone else to tell us right or wrong.

And a desire to follow the changing morality of popular culture is strong. I’m all for challenging the view of any church as long as it’s done intelligently. Laziness about making moral decisions usually results in doing what “feels right”. Very few actually have the humility to obey what someone else tells them is right or wrong. Do you ever jaywalk or eat trans fats? I do sometimes, because I’m too lazy to heed the authorities who know better.

The churches view on sex, is very obviously, not natural.

And your view on Catholicism, it seems, is very obviously misinformed. Please, prove me wrong.

 

[newbetx]

The churches view on sex, is very obviously, not natural.

EXACTLY! And rightfully so. We are to be ABOVE what is “natural.” That’s the problem. People try to claim that the rules are “cruel” or “unnatural” for the 1 percent cases and thus claim for the other 99% they should also not apply.

Our world is a mess because too many people are now convinced sexual pleasure is more important than commitment to the family. A boat is better to have than a child. Our desires and dreams are more important than our duties.

The Church’s position on sexuality treats it with more value than any of our current culture can.

One can “rather laugh with the sinners, than cry with the Saints” if one likes. God gives us that choice too.

 

[Red_Beard]

God created humans to be capable of total self gift, of lifelong commitment (total and permanent), of loving a person for his or her own sake. The act performed to express and communicate this is sex. God has also created that the way humans procreate is sex. The act of human sex serves, is ordered to, two ends: union and procreation. However, the ends are not possessed or guaranteed by performing the act. The act does not change whether unity is desired or not, or achieved or not. The act does not change whether procreation is desired or not, or achieved or not. Just because one end my be achieved without the other or not at all, does not mean that the act’s ends are not connected; human sex regardless of its outcome, is ordered to both things. Unity and procreation are inseparably connected by the act that is performed: sex.

Sex is not performed one way to achieve unity and another to achieve procreation. The act is the same.

    The difference between contraception and NFP does not lie in the end: avoiding conception.  You can read both Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii, hopefully you understand that the Church acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons for married couples to avoid conception.  So, the desire to avoid conception is not wrong.  The achievement of that desire is not wrong.  Also, mutually consenting to abstain from acting is not wrong.
 
The difference between contraception and NFP lies in what is done to the act of sex. The human integrity of the person is sacrificed. In contraception the bodies of the spouses are barricaded, mutilated, or their natural functions are hindered.  The spouses are no longer complete in their humanity, and cannot give all that a human person is supposed to give.   The act of sex is changed and has lost its integrity.  Not only are they incapable of unity as God created it, they are completely opposed to the procreative end of sex.  They seek to achieve the desired end by changing or rejecting the act and its ends as created by God.
 
In NFP the sex act is unchanged.  The spouses bodies are intact, their humanity is full.  The spouses give all of themselves, just as the do if they were trying to conceive.  There is nothing opposed to either unity or procreation in the act itself.  Therefore, even if it is not possible to conceive the act is procreative, because it is the same as the act that can conceive.  The ends of sex are accepted and unchanged, only one is not achieved. They seek to achieve the desired end of delaying conception by not acting.
 
The Church sees sex as good; the act itself and its ends.  The rejection of the ends and the alteration of the act is what the Church says is wrong and immoral.  The Church also says that adultery, fornication, masturbation, rape, and IVF are wrong and immoral because they are all opposed to either total, permanent self gift, and/or procreation as created by God.

~ Mrs. Red Beard

 

[KSU]

Catholicism doesn’t require that the marital embrace always be “open” to procreation but rather “ordred” toward procreation. There is a difference.

Can you explain the difference, please?

 

[newbetx]

I am a conservative, married, practicing Catholic, and well versed in the basics of the Faith. Nevertheless, I have never been able to adequately explain to protestant friends the reasoning of the Church regarding the “always open to procreation” requirement during married sex, even if one or both spouses are medically unable to procreate.
I have always been able to show how Church teaching is based on the Natural Law, a revelation of God, etc., but not in this case.
Help, please.

To answer this requires a ton of background. I tried to find something concise but it’s almost a chapter in TOB for Beginners. It really has to do with the purpose of sex. As long a people don’t understand the connection of the act with the responsibility for the outcome, then, no, they’ll never understand. You might as well talk a foreign language.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Can you explain the difference, please?

Ordered to procreation is a more precise term than open to procreation (or open to life). The act of sex has a natural order…all the parts in all the right places with the ending in the proper place. This unaltered act is ordered toward procreation, (even if the women is naturally infertile or the man is naturally infertile), because a pregnancy could occur if conditions are right.