Procreative when procreation is not possible?

[PartoftheBody]

I’ll try to put this as delicately as I can…

I understand the Catholic teaching that marital sexual acts are meant to be both unitive and procreative, and it makes perfect sense to me. However, this is what I’m confused about: why is it important that the acts be procreative if procreation is not possible for natural or morally licit reasons?

For instance, if the wife is already pregnant or had a hysterectomy, she couldn’t possibly become pregnant [or pregnant again]. So why is it necessary for the couple’s marital acts to be ordered toward procreation?

Please avoid discussing specific acts; I want to discuss (and better understand) the principle in general. Thank you!

 

[spiderweb]

To put it very simply, it just means that you are open to creation and are not purposefully doing anything to interfere with the possibility of natural procreation.

An older couple who are beyond natural childbearing age can still have marital sex because they are not interfering with the natural order. The same would be true for someone who is already pregnant. They are not purposefully preventing pregnancy, rather they are acting within the natural order of things.

In the case of surgical procedures (hysterectomy), as long is the surgery itself was not done with the intention of preventing childbirth, then it would still be ok. Some surgeries are not reversible, so a person who did have the surgery as a form of birthcontrol, could repent of that act and still be ok.

If a sexual act is not procreative (even if naturally it is impossible), than it is by definition disordered and morally sinful. Hope that makes sense.

 

[dshix]

Spiderweb gave a good answer, and I have one thing to add.

OP, consider Abraham and Sarah. They were both around the age of 100, Sarah being far past childbearing age and even barren when she was of childbearing age. God made a miracle for her, and made her able to bear a child.

Consider. When a man and woman, in harmony with then natural order, engage in marital relations, even if the woman is incapable of bearing a child, they open the door for God to possibly give her a child. Even when all natural or scientific indications show the opposite, they are leaving that door open and acting according with what is right.

When a couple uses contraception or the withdrawal method, they are intentionally saying “No” to whatever chance of a result there is.

Going back to the situation with Abraham and his wife. If they had practiced contraception of some kind, God would not have cause the miracle, because they would be directly closing the door to Him.

This is a very abstract concept, but if you manage to wrap your head around it, hopefully it’ll make things much clearer for you in the future.

 

[Corki]

I’ll try to put this as delicately as I can…

I understand the Catholic teaching that marital sexual acts are meant to be both unitive and procreative, and it makes perfect sense to me. However, this is what I’m confused about: why is it important that the acts be procreative if procreation is not possible for natural or morally licit reasons?

For instance, if the wife is already pregnant or had a hysterectomy, she couldn’t possibly become pregnant [or pregnant again]. So why is it necessary for the couple’s marital acts to be ordered toward procreation?

Please avoid discussing specific acts; I want to discuss (and better understand) the principle in general. Thank you!

The requirement isn’t “procreative,” it’s “ordered toward procreation”. The latter is entirely independent on the fertility or fecundity of the spouses.

The reason it’s necessary is that other acts would be disordered.

 

[on_the_hill]

The reason it’s necessary is that other acts would be disordered.

Or is it the other way around? That the other acts are disordered because it’s necessary.

 

[Neofight]

Makes you wonder, despite good intentions, if NFP is sinful…say what you want, but the desire of those using it is more than the desire to merely decrease the likelihood of conception, but to prevent pregnancy, which is hard to argue that is little more than using a technicality to sidestep God’s plan.

 

[dshix]

NFP can be sinful; it is not, however, for anyone but the couple who is practicing it, and perhaps their spiritual director(s) to decide that the way they are using it **is **sinful.

 

[Corki]

Makes you wonder, despite good intentions, if NFP is sinful…say what you want, but the desire of those using it is more than the desire to merely decrease the likelihood of conception, but to prevent pregnancy, which is hard to argue that is little more than using a technicality to sidestep God’s plan.

There is nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy if a couple has a just reason to do so. It’s not using a “technicality”. It’s using a woman’s natural cycle which was designed by God.

Where NFP** can** become sinful is if a couple is using it for selfish reasons and has stopped trying to discern if they are being called to have another child.

 

[mikekle]

Spiderweb gave a good answer, and I have one thing to add.

OP, consider Abraham and Sarah. They were both around the age of 100, Sarah being far past childbearing age and even barren when she was of childbearing age. God made a miracle for her, and made her able to bear a child.

Consider. When a man and woman, in harmony with then natural order, engage in marital relations, even if the woman is incapable of bearing a child, they open the door for God to possibly give her a child. Even when all natural or scientific indications show the opposite, they are leaving that door open and acting according with what is right.

When a couple uses contraception or the withdrawal method, they are intentionally saying “No” to whatever chance of a result there is.

Going back to the situation with Abraham and his wife. If they had practiced contraception of some kind, God would not have cause the miracle, because they would be directly closing the door to Him.

This is a very abstract concept, but if you manage to wrap your head around it, hopefully it’ll make things much clearer for you in the future.

I may be wrong, but if God truly wants to bless a couple with pregnancy, even if they use a form of contraception, could not God just make sure the contraception effort fails? If God can breathe life into a fetus, I have a feeling he could neutralize a contraception method if he wished to do so.

 

[dshix]

I may be wrong, but if God truly wants to bless a couple with pregnancy, even if they use a form of contraception, could not God just make sure the contraception effort fails? If God can breathe life into a fetus, I have a feeling he could neutralize a contraception method if he wished to do so.

Certainly he could; I’m not denying God’s ability. However, he would be overriding their decision, made by their free will, to kill the child conceived.

 

[MJJean]

I may be wrong, but if God truly wants to bless a couple with pregnancy, even if they use a form of contraception, could not God just make sure the contraception effort fails? If God can breathe life into a fetus, I have a feeling he could neutralize a contraception method if he wished to do so.

Yup. I’m the mother of two children conceived using contraception. One Pill baby and one condom baby. I wasn’t Christian when the girls were conceived, but even then I knew they existed for a reason. Now, many years and a change of faith later, I figure God meant for me to have the girls and sent them to me despite my use of birth control.

After my youngest was born I had a tubal ligation. When I decided to convert I discussed this with my priest. According to him, for us, “ordered toward procreation” and “open to life” mean that we complete the sex act properly and that we’d be willing to have and raise a child if I did become pregnant.

 

[mikekle]

Certainly he could; I’m not denying God’s ability. However, he would be overriding their decision, made by their free will, to kill the child conceived.

So, just like the above post, when contraception DID fail and resulted in a baby, then their free will WAS infringed upon…right?

ONLY God can breathe life into a fetus, and it is said ALL of them are important to him, so God would know the couple used contraception, and even though it failed, it STILL requires God to breathe life into the fetus, so God would also know the couple did not want to get pregnant, yet in the end, they do…if this is not overriding their decision, I dont know what is.

 

[dshix]

So, just like the above post, when contraception DID fail and resulted in a baby, then their free will WAS infringed upon…right?

ONLY God can breathe life into a fetus, and it is said ALL of them are important to him, so God would know the couple used contraception, and even though it failed, it STILL requires God to breathe life into the fetus, so God would also know the couple did not want to get pregnant, yet in the end, they do…if this is not overriding their decision, I dont know what is.

I actually expected this objection.

There are many reasons why the pill can fail. Improper doses, a very strong baby, etc. These may or may not have anything to do with God overriding the function of the pill.

There are many, many reasons why condoms fail. Improper use, mistakes, or just the condom itself being flawed. These may or may not have anything to do with God overriding the function of the condom.

In the case of withdrawal, this is a form of contraception where the man deliberately, using his free will, does not let his semen enter the woman after sex. This is a very clear case of a human closing the door to God’s gift of a child.

In all types of contraception, it is an act of the will made by the persons involved in which they close the door to impregnation and children. That doesn’t mean their contraception cannot fail, however.

For you to say that God overrides their wills when they get a child is an inaccuracy; rather, they used the contraception improperly. When the natural events that lead to the coming together of egg and sperm produce a child, God breathes the life into the child, as you say.

Again, that is not an overriding of the parents’ wills; it is simply nature taking its natural course.