Prohibition of non-procreative sex, logically consistent?

[D0UBTFIRE]

I am very troubled by what I perceive to be a logical inconsistency in our faith’s teachings regarding sex. I understand that birth control is sinful because it eliminates the possibility to procreate (although it doesn’t eliminate it 100%), that only NFP is acceptable (and for the most part I love that but I have my moments when I hate it LOL), and I also understand that homosexual sex is considered sinful because it is always non-procreative (and therefor unnatural, but the more science I read the more it seems that same sex attraction is found in nature so I think calling unnatural is incorrect). These are the things that I understand to be true. For the most part they make sense - sex is mainly for making babies, using it any other way is a problem.

Now, maybe I’m just a hardliner, but I think I would be more comfortable if the Church said that sex is ONLY for making babies, instead of primarily…because this “primarily” has me very confused. In other words, why is SOME non-procreative sex okay while other non-procreative sex NOT okay?

Instances where it is NOT okay, like I listed before: artificial contraception, homosexual relationships. Instances where it IS okay are during the time of the month that a woman has charted her infertility with the help of NFP, during pregnancy, after menopause, for couples who are naturally infertile. Now, some might argue that even while charting NFP, or couples who suffer from infertility or maybe some people will get crazy and bring out those one or two examples of when someone got pregnant with a second baby while still pregnant with the first…but the point is that in these cases conception is VERY VERY unlikely - perhaps even more unlikely than with the use of artificial contraception (condoms are just not THAT effective).

So…I just can’t wrap my head around it. Either all generally considered non-procreative sex should be sinful, or none of it should. I feel as if when people try to explain it, like they’re grasping at straws. I just don’t get why I can have sex while I’m pregnant but I can’t use a condom. I am more likely to get pregnant while using a condom than to conceive another child while already pregnant.

(For the record, personally I’m opposed to all the hormonal contraceptives because they’re abortifacients, so I understand the Church’s opposition to those for that reason, so I’m not really talking about the Pill or anything like it.)

As for homosexual relations, just regarding the sexual relationship and procreation because I understand that there are other arguments surrounding this issue - but what is the difference between two men who engage in sexual relationships (who therefor can NOT procreate) and two people getting married when the woman is way past menopause (who therefor can NOT procreate)??? I’m sure many of you will have answers to these questions and many of you will probably brush me aside - but tell me truthfully, do you now see the logical inconsistency here? Wouldn’t it be better if the Church said that all non-procreative sex was sinful, or if the Church said all non-procreative sex was acceptable? Wouldn’t that be more logically consistant???

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Not to get too graphic, but another inconsistancy popped in my mind. The reason that oral sex is not okay (yes I understand the details here I just don’t want to write them) is because it’s not procreative, no? So then is giving oral sex to completion acceptable while the wife is pregnant??? If not, why not? The answer cannot be because it’s not procreative because neither would the normal marital embrace be procreative in this situation… but yet that is the only answer I’ve ever heard - it’s not procreative so it’s forbidden. That seems completely illogical - then why is sex while pregnant not forbidden?

 

[1ke]

Now, maybe I’m just a hardliner, but I think I would be more comfortable if the Church said that sex is ONLY for making babies, instead of primarily…because this “primarily” has me very confused. In other words, why is SOME non-procreative sex okay while other non-procreative sex NOT okay?

The Church teaching is that the marital embrace consists of two purposes-- procreation and unity of spouses-- that may never be separated.

Your misunderstanding comes in the idea that “SOME non-procreative sex okay while other non-procreative sex NOT okay”. This is not an accuate statement of Church teaching. It is never moral to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace.

Instances where it IS okay are during the time of the month that a woman has charted her infertility with the help of NFP, during pregnancy, after menopause, for couples who are naturally infertile.

None of these are examples of “non procreative” intercourse. You misunderstand what the Church means by ordered to procreation. The Church means a completed act of intercourse. In each of these examples, the couples do nothing to alter the act of intercourse-- it is a completed act. It is objectively ordered to procreation.

but the point is that in these cases conception is VERY VERY unlikely - perhaps even more unlikely than with the use of artificial contraception (condoms are just not THAT effective).

Actually, that is not the point at all. The Church’s teaching is completely unrelated to “effectiveness” or “chance” of conception. That is not at all what it means to be either ordered to or not ordered to procreation.

but what is the difference between two men who engage in sexual relationships (who therefor can NOT procreate) and two people getting married when the woman is way past menopause (who therefor can NOT procreate)???

The morality does not lie in whether or not the couple can procreate. It lies in whether or not the act they engage in is a fully completed act of sexual intercourse that is ordered to procreation-- or if you prefer, retains the procreative meaning of the act.

do you now see the logical inconsistency here?

There is no logical inconsistency. There is merely a misunderstanding of what the Church means by ordered to unity and procreation.

Wouldn’t it be better if the Church said that all non-procreative sex was sinful, or if the Church said all non-procreative sex was acceptable? Wouldn’t that be more logically consistant???

No, because that is not true. Go back and adjust your understanding of what the Church is actually stating, and there is no inconsistency.

 

[Brendan]

The error is in your assumption that the sin is in non-procreative sex.

That, by itself is not sinful, as God clearly designed the female body to have times of fertility and times of non fertility.

Neither is the sin in the desire to space births of children when serious issues are present.

The sin lies in the disruption of the marital act.

The marital act was designed by God to be unitive. That means that there is a full and complete union between the husband and the wife. It is a full and complete gift of self, exactly as God created them, with nothing held back. It is an emulation of God’s creative Love, where God gives fully and completely of His Love for us.

When ABC is used, it is NOT a free gift of self. It involves rejection, which is contrary to Love. The husband and\or the wife is rejecting the other’s fertility as God has given it to them.

It is no less a rejection of the spouse than saying to them “I wish to make love to you, but I do not like your face. I will not make love to you unless you place this bag over your face”. Can anyone say that such a statement is a loving act? That the spouse accepts the other fully and completely?

There is nothing in NFP that does not rejects the fertility of the spouses as God created it. One gives and receives the entirety of the other, exactly as God created them. And God creates nothing but Good.

Do you see the difference, the fault does not lie with the fertility of the act, but with the loving and complete acceptance of the each spouse AS GOD CREATED THEM.

As far as non-marital sex, including homosexual sex. That too is not a loving act, a gift of self, as it, by it’s nature, is fornacative. It kills the grace of the soul of the participants, which again is not a loving act. The marital act is just that, it can happen only in the bonds of marriage. Two men can never be married, so no sex act between them can ever be just, regardless of any element of fertility. Likewise in Fornication or Adultery. Even if both parties are accepting of each other’s fertility as God created them, the act is an assault on the other soul. Hardly a loving act. A loving person desires nothing but holiness from the ones they love. As God does.

 

[1ke]

because it’s not procreative, no?

No.

Because it is not ordered to procreation.

The answer cannot be because it’s not procreative because neither would the normal marital embrace be procreative in this situation

The marital embrace is ordered to procreation.

 

[TimothyH]

I am very troubled by what I perceive to be a logical inconsistency in our faith’s teachings regarding sex. I understand that birth control is sinful because it eliminates the possibility to procreate (although it doesn’t eliminate it 100%), that only NFP is acceptable (and for the most part I love that but I have my moments when I hate it LOL), and I also understand that homosexual sex is considered sinful because it is always non-procreative (and therefor unnatural, but the more science I read the more it seems that same sex attraction is found in nature so I think calling unnatural is incorrect). These are the things that I understand to be true. For the most part they make sense - sex is mainly for making babies, using it any other way is a problem.

Now, maybe I’m just a hardliner, but I think I would be more comfortable if the Church said that sex is ONLY for making babies, instead of primarily…because this “primarily” has me very confused. In other words, why is SOME non-procreative sex okay while other non-procreative sex NOT okay?

Instances where it is NOT okay, like I listed before: artificial contraception, homosexual relationships. Instances where it IS okay are during the time of the month that a woman has charted her infertility with the help of NFP, during pregnancy, after menopause, for couples who are naturally infertile. Now, some might argue that even while charting NFP, or couples who suffer from infertility or maybe some people will get crazy and bring out those one or two examples of when someone got pregnant with a second baby while still pregnant with the first…but the point is that in these cases conception is VERY VERY unlikely - perhaps even more unlikely than with the use of artificial contraception (condoms are just not THAT effective).

So…I just can’t wrap my head around it. Either all generally considered non-procreative sex should be sinful, or none of it should. I feel as if when people try to explain it, like they’re grasping at straws. I just don’t get why I can have sex while I’m pregnant but I can’t use a condom. I am more likely to get pregnant while using a condom than to conceive another child while already pregnant.

(For the record, personally I’m opposed to all the hormonal contraceptives because they’re abortifacients, so I understand the Church’s opposition to those for that reason, so I’m not really talking about the Pill or anything like it.)

As for homosexual relations, just regarding the sexual relationship and procreation because I understand that there are other arguments surrounding this issue - but what is the difference between two men who engage in sexual relationships (who therefor can NOT procreate) and two people getting married when the woman is way past menopause (who therefor can NOT procreate)??? I’m sure many of you will have answers to these questions and many of you will probably brush me aside - but tell me truthfully, do you now see the logical inconsistency here? Wouldn’t it be better if the Church said that all non-procreative sex was sinful, or if the Church said all non-procreative sex was acceptable? Wouldn’t that be more logically consistant???

Sex is not only for making babies. There is a unitive aspect to sex, where spouses “cleave to each other and the two become one flesh”. The innermost working of the trinity is the model for this. Deep communion between partners is the result. The Church affirms this. Sex is not exclusively for procreation.

Sex between same sex partners may be found in nature but it is not natural. It is disordered. Disordered means that it is not in order with the way God designed things. For humans, sex husband and wife is ordered to God’s design and all else is disordered.

The deep communion which results from the union of spouses is reserved for two who are permanently committed to each other and open to life. That is how God designed things. Everything else is a distortion or corruption of God’s design.

-Tim-

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

None of these are examples of “non procreative” intercourse. You misunderstand what the Church means by ordered to procreation. The Church means a completed act of intercourse. In each of these examples, the couples do nothing to alter the act of intercourse-- it is a completed act. It is objectively ordered to procreation.

Call me stupid, but I’m not understanding what “ordered to procreation” means. From what you’re saying it does not mean fertile sex. Sounds like you’re saying it means “a completed act of intercourse” - but a completed act of intercourse can take place if a woman has her tubes tied, but that isn’t acceptable - so I still don’t understand, maybe I’m thinking of a different kind of “completed.”

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Sex between same sex partners may be found in nature but it is not natural. It is disordered. Disordered means that it is not in order with the way God designed things.

Again, call me stupid, but if it’s found in nature how is it not natural? If a person is born with same sex attraction how did God not design him that way? If some animals engage in homosexual acts, how did God not design that? Who created them? Who designed them if not God? Very confusing.

 

[bzkoss236]

The Church teaches that sex needs to be “open to life”. This means that you are doing nothing under your own power to alter yourselves in such a way that would prevent conception, if such were to occur. NFP uses your bodies own cycles, stuff that you don’t really have conscious control over, so you are not willfully altering yourselves, but by using contraception (condoms, the pill, etc.) you are willfully altering yourselves to not be able conceive and thereby going against God’s will for sex, and anything that goes against God’s will is sin. Also, if you are infertile for some reason, it isn’t of your own doing as well, so it is not sin (unless you are infertile because of having surgery to make yourself so).

And, if you happen to be infertile, using contraception in addition to being infertile (like using a condom) is still considered sinful because you are still altering yourselves in such a way that if by some miracle you would, for that moment, be fertile, then you are still going against God’s will for sex. Think of Elizabeth in her old age, she was still able to conceive by a miracle.

And a note about homosexual sex being unnatural: When we say unnatural, we don’t mean that it doesn’t happen in nature (with animals), what we mean is that it is something that is against God’s will for sex. So, if animals had immortal and rational souls as we humans do, then they would be sinning, but since they do not, they are just going off instincts (basic instincts of eat, sleep, procreate), they cannot sin. Also, just because animals do something, doesn’t give way to mean that humans should be free to do the same. Some animals would fight to the death to have a particular mate, does this mean that humans should be free to do it as well?

 

[1ke]

but a completed act of intercourse can take place if a woman has her tubes tied, but that isn’t acceptable

However, in this case the woman did take an action to alter the act.

CCC 2370 (quoting Humanae Vitae) “every **action **which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil

 

[1ke]

Again, call me stupid, but if it’s found in nature how is it not natural? If a person is born with same sex attraction how did God not design him that way?

Man’s sexual appetites and desires are disordered and disfigured by Original Sin. God did not “design him that way.”

If some animals engage in homosexual acts, how did God not design that? Who created them? Who designed them if not God? Very confusing.

They eat their own young, too. That is not a “design”.

Animals have no rational soul. Animals are not people.

And really, this line of discussion is not relevant to your original question.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

The Church teaches that sex needs to be “open to life”. This means that you are doing nothing under your own power to alter yourselves in such a way that would prevent conception, if such were to occur. NFP uses your bodies own cycles, stuff that you don’t really have conscious control over, so you are not willfully altering yourselves…

And a note about homosexual sex being unnatural: When we say unnatural, we don’t mean that it doesn’t happen in nature (with animals), what we mean is that it is something that is against God’s will for sex…

Also, just because animals do something, doesn’t give way to mean that humans should be free to do the same. Some animals would fight to the death to have a particular mate, does this mean that humans should be free to do it as well?

I know how NFP works because that’s what we use, but I can’t see a convincing argument as to why having sex during infertile times is any different than putting on a condom during fertile times (I do see a weak argument, it’s just not one that I find to be strong like with other issues like abortion or adultery). There is no difference in my openness to conceiving if I choose to have sex during an infertile phase versus choosing to have sex with a condom during the fertile phase. Either way I’m (hypothetically) hoping not to get pregnant. If the thought process is the same (“hope I don’t get pregnant”) then the issue seems to be with the physical object of a condom working as a barrier…but hindering one’s fertility with an object to enjoy sexual relations with a spouse at a time when more children aren’t desired doesn’t seem any more immoral than wearing a blindfold during a game of pin the tale on the donkey to hinder one’s eyesight in order to enjoy a birthday party game with one’s children.

Obviously if animals do it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s okay, but I just think it’s wrong to call it unnatural because it’s clearly found in nature. Semantics, I guess, but it makes more sense to define unnatural as “not found in nature” than to define it as “not God’s will”. Perhaps a better word than “unnatural” exists to describe this.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

However, in this case the woman did take an action to alter the act.

CCC 2370 (quoting Humanae Vitae) “every **action **which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil

I think I understand that this is what the Church teaches - I fail to understand WHY. What’s wrong with trying not to procreate?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Man’s sexual appetites and desires are disordered and disfigured by Original Sin. God did not “design him that way.”

They eat their own young, too. That is not a “design”.

Animals have no rational soul. Animals are not people.

And really, this line of discussion is not relevant to your original question.

Agreed, I’m less concerned with the homosexual topic as I am with the contraception topic - but I think they’re related. It seems homosexual relations are not defensible because contraceptives are not defensible. Which is why it makes sense that so many Americans defend same sex marriage - because already for them sex and children don’t go hand in hand.

 

[1ke]

I know how NFP works because that’s what we use, but I can’t see a convincing argument as to why having sex during infertile times is any different than putting on a condom during fertile times

Each time you engage in intercourse you take no action at all to alter the act. Your decicion is either to engage in the act or not, but you do not alter it and the act results in its natural end.

With a condom you choose to engage in the act and deliberatly attempt to frustrate the natural end of the act.

There is no difference in my openness to conceiving if I choose to have sex during an infertile phase versus choosing to have sex with a condom during the fertile phase.

Openness to conceiving is not relevant to the morality of the act you engage in. It is whether or not you disorder the marital embrace itself.

 

[bzkoss236]

I know how NFP works because that’s what we use, but I can’t see a convincing argument as to why having sex during infertile times is any different than putting on a condom during fertile times (I do see a weak argument, it’s just not one that I find to be strong like with other issues like abortion or adultery). There is no difference in my openness to conceiving if I choose to have sex during an infertile phase versus choosing to have sex with a condom during the fertile phase. Either way I’m (hypothetically) hoping not to get pregnant. If the thought process is the same (“hope I don’t get pregnant”) then the issue seems to be with the physical object of a condom working as a barrier…but hindering one’s fertility with an object to enjoy sexual relations with a spouse at a time when more children aren’t desired doesn’t seem any more immoral than wearing a blindfold during a game of pin the tale on the donkey to hinder one’s eyesight in order to enjoy a birthday party game with one’s children.

Obviously if animals do it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s okay, but I just think it’s wrong to call it unnatural because it’s clearly found in nature. Semantics, I guess, but it makes more sense to define unnatural as “not found in nature” than to define it as “not God’s will”. Perhaps a better word than “unnatural” exists to describe this.

That’s because when you are infertile (whether pregnant, or during your cycle), you are not purposefully causing yourself to be infertile. Using contraception, you are purposefully causing yourself to be infertile, and because it is a **willful **act **against **God’s will, it is sinful.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Openness to conceiving is not relevant to the morality of the act you engage in. It is whether or not you disorder the marital embrace itself.

I guess this is the main reason the majority of Catholics reject the Church’s teaching on contraception. It might make sense to some, but to normal under-educated people who don’t have any training in philosophy or theology all this talk about being “ordered to” makes no freaking sense. How frustrating.

 

[1ke]

What’s wrong with trying not to procreate?

Nothing.

The Church does not teach that it is wrong to space/plan/avoid children for a serious reason.

What is wrong is the way in which you go about it-- either abstaining from the act periodically or completely (moral) or engaging in it and altering it (immoral).

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

That’s because when you are infertile (whether pregnant, or during your cycle), you are not purposefully causing yourself to be infertile. Using contraception, you are purposefully causing yourself to be infertile, and because it is a **willful **act **against **God’s will, it is sinful.

But WHY is altering the act wrong? How is wearing a condom morally different than wearing a blindfold?

 

[bzkoss236]

But WHY is altering the act wrong? How is wearing a condom morally different than wearing a blindfold?

Because in wearing a blindfold you aren’t trying to make yourself infertile.