Prohibition of non-procreative sex, logically consistent?

[Iron_Donkey]

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.”

In fact, it is the tying of the tubes, not the act after the tubes are tied, that is unacceptable, so far as I understand.

I’ll admit that I’m a bit hazzy on the issue, not having studied it enough, and I do recommend 1ke’s posts as they have always seemed to be knowledgeable on the subject, but I heard an analogy which may be helpful. (And if it’s wrong, hopefully someone will correct me.)

Think of it like this - there is a chain of conditions that must be met in order for sex to produce a child. Some of those conditions vary in time, and we are not obliged to only engage in the act when they line up correctly (or when we think they might) or when all of the links are intact, but only to avoid the purposeful sabotaging of the chain. Artificial contraception is bad because it breaks a link. NFP is fine, because while a link may not be present, in short, we didn’t do it. Ditto for people born sterile, and even for people who have become sterilized.

Perhaps you could say that sex is ordered to procreation when, should it be the case that all of the other conditions of fertility etc that are not related to what you are actually doing line up to cause conception to be possible (whether or not they actually do), then it conception actually possible? Again, I’m a bit hazy on the issue - I refer you to 1ke.

(Again, becoming sterilized is a problem, but once sterilized it’s just another broken link that was broken in the past, and sex does not break it again. Now, there may be a problem with a frame of mind which constantly only participates in the act because of the knowledge of the sterilization and hence rejoices in what was a sin, but that’s a slightly different issue.)

 

[vsedriver]

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.

the difference is God designed a woman’s fertility cycle and when you use NFP you are working with God. When you use a condom you are telling God that His design is faulty and that you don’t trust Him with your fertility. You are placing your will over God’s will.

 

[vsedriver]

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

Basically what you are asking is why can’t I have all the pleasure of sex without the resulting responsibility?

Because sex has a God given purpose and to use something contrary to its purpose is sinful.

After all, what’s wrong with eating for pleasure, puking it up and eating more? Yet gluttony is also sinful.

Thus enjoying sex without the responsibility is called lust and lust is sinful.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Here is the quote by Fulton Sheen, so you don’t have to watch the video:

Just suppose that a vast majority of people went around with their eyes blindfolded and their ears plugged up. We would very soon have a papal encyclical which would oppose that. And the Church would say, “It is not right to blindfold your eyes or to plug up your ears. Does not reason, does not the natural law tell you that the eyes were meant for seeing and that the ears were made for hearing? Therefore, you must allow these organs to work out the function for which God created them.”

There indeed would be many that would say “Oh, the Catholic Church is opposed to eye control. The Catholic Church is in opposition to ear control.” Certainly! Because reason tells us why these organs were made. So too, a husband and wife were made in a certain way and God created male and female in a certain way, and therefore these organs are to be permitted to function according to the way that God made them.

Someone please address this… someone else mentioned that to use something contrary to it’s purpose is sinful. That statement combined with this Fulton Sheen quote are convincing me that the Church must consider voluntarily walking around wearing a blindfold sinful…but this sounds so ridiculous it’s driving me nuts.

 

[Listener]

I agree that the birth control prohibition does not seem logical in certain instances. I think it is easy to see that having children and being open to life is a logically good thing in general.

Where I think the logic breaks down is when pregnancy is so dangerous that the woman will very likely die if she gets pregnant. It just seems illogical that the Church would allow a man to shoot and kill a burglar to save his wife’s life, but he is not allowed to have a vasectomy to save his wife’s life.

In that case, it seems like the Church considers everything he does a mortal sin.

1. Have a vasectomy? Mortal sin.
2. Abstain forever? It is supposed to be a mortal sin to deny the “marriage debt” to your spouse.
3. Ruin your marriage and get a divorce? It says in the Catechism that getting a divorce is a mortal sin unless it is not your fault.

I wish the Church would be more lenient in cases such as this. It just does not make logical sense to me.

 

[vames]

Someone please address this… someone else mentioned that to use something contrary to it’s purpose is sinful. That statement combined with this Fulton Sheen quote are convincing me that the Church must consider voluntarily walking around wearing a blindfold sinful…but this sounds so ridiculous it’s driving me nuts.

I guess it’s only a reduction to the absurd, to prove a point - that one should not suppress the functions of their body parts as designed by God, because the natural design of the body is a perfect gift from God. But the essential difference is that in reality, nobody feels the need to use blindfolds or earplugs with the purpose of rendering themselves blind and deaf for days, months or years, because it’s in the interest of any sane person to see and to hear. We can as well use our natural eyelids and use to walk with the eyes closed, but it’s never in our interest By contrast, temporary infertility can be in our interest, hence the notion of family planning.

Now if one follows the logic of Bl. Fulton Sheen, people would be forbidden as well to shave their heads, beards and body hair, because hair pertains to the natural design of the body, is a mark of our sexuality and has a natural function which you shouldn’t suppress. Yet people shave their hair because it’s in their interest too, like temporary infertility - it’s too hot outside or it’s unfashionable or plain ugly to let their natural hair grow. But with temporary infertility, the consequences can be different from shaving your hair: nobody is tempted to go further and amputate their limbs after they shave their hair, but many are tempted to abuse the possibilities of family planning, either by prolonging it indefinitely (hence the Church says “you can postpone pregnancies only for serious reasons”) or by making it so easy (artificial planning) that the husband and wife cease to see themselves as people who depend on God and who collaborate with Him in procreating human life. So this is the reason why sexual morality is of particular attention in the eyes of the Church.

That’s why my understanding is that in this field, the Church always uses to think preemptively: “if X is allowed partially or in exceptional circumstances, then people would end up by using X on a regular basis” or “if X is allowed, then people would end up by using Y as a logical consequence”. I noticed it, for example, in the case of masturbation for providing semen samples for various medical diagnoses - I understand that this method is forbidden, by the same virtue of the “no exceptions” principle. That’s why you can compare a condom to a blindfold and say “what’s so bad if we use a condom only sometimes and for fun, since our marital life as a whole is unitive and open to life?”, while the Church says that each and every marital act should follow the same rules, with no exceptions.

So to come back to the analogy of Bl. Fulton Sheen and to complete the reduction to the absurd, you would say “what’s so bad if I use blindfolds only sometimes and for fun, since I don’t intend to make myself blind and I’m grateful to God that my eyes can see?”, while the logical response according to the above analogy would be: you shouldn’t suppress the seeing function - not even once, because you could be tempted to do it again and eventually to cease to see your seeing function as a gift from God which you don’t have the right to reject.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I agree that the birth control prohibition does not seem logical in certain instances. I think it is easy to see that having children and being open to life is a logically good thing in general.

Where I think the logic breaks down is when pregnancy is so dangerous that the woman will very likely die if she gets pregnant. It just seems illogical that the Church would allow a man to shoot and kill a burglar to save his wife’s life, but he is not allowed to have a vasectomy to save his wife’s life.

In that case, it seems like the Church considers everything he does a mortal sin.

1. Have a vasectomy? Mortal sin.
2. Abstain forever? It is supposed to be a mortal sin to deny the “marriage debt” to your spouse.
3. Ruin your marriage and get a divorce? It says in the Catechism that getting a divorce is a mortal sin unless it is not your fault.

I wish the Church would be more lenient in cases such as this. It just does not make logical sense to me.

You make perfect sense to me. What a mess. It does sound like a person in the hypothetical situation you describe has not choice but to dissent, in some fashion or the other. And I also understand how it’s only in some very serious circumstances that the logic breaks down. For the most part discouraging contraception is a great idea. I do not think people should get married and start contracepting right away, or even the first 10 - 15 years makes little sense, unless there is a very grave reason like getting pregnant puts your life at risk. But the complete ban doesn’t make sense…at least not on barrier methods or vasectomies and tubal ligations. Something about it doesn’t sit right with me. Especially not if NFP is allowed. If NFP were not allowed then this might make more sense.

 

[Listener]

the difference is God designed a woman’s fertility cycle and when you use NFP you are working with God. When you use a condom you are telling God that His design is faulty and that you don’t trust Him with your fertility. You are placing your will over God’s will.

I always thought that a woman’s period was part of the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, where God said, “In great pain shall you bring forth children.” I also thought that was the reason that a woman’s period was always known as, “the curse.” I wonder what childbirth would have been like if “the fall” had not happened.

Is this God’s original design or just what we are stuck with because of the fall of mankind? I always hated my monthly cycle, and I thought it was horrible!

 

[salusanimarum17]

…
Where I think the logic breaks down is when pregnancy is so dangerous that the woman will very likely die if she gets pregnant. It just seems illogical that the Church would allow a man to shoot and kill a burglar to save his wife’s life, but he is not allowed to have a vasectomy to save his wife’s life.

In that case, it seems like the Church considers everything he does a mortal sin.

1. Have a vasectomy? Mortal sin.
2. Abstain forever? It is supposed to be a mortal sin to deny the “marriage debt” to your spouse.
3. Ruin your marriage and get a divorce? It says in the Catechism that getting a divorce is a mortal sin unless it is not your fault.

…

Shooting the burglar is ok as long as it is the only option. Obviously, there are options other than a vasectomy which would have the same effect. I don’t know why you would say “abstain forever” is all the couple could do.

 

[vsedriver]

Where I think the logic breaks down is when pregnancy is so dangerous that the woman will very likely die if she gets pregnant. It just seems illogical that the Church would allow a man to shoot and kill a burglar to save his wife’s life, but he is not allowed to have a vasectomy to save his wife’s life.

In that case, it seems like the Church considers everything he does a mortal sin.

1. Have a vasectomy? Mortal sin.
2. Abstain forever? It is supposed to be a mortal sin to deny the “marriage debt” to your spouse.
3. Ruin your marriage and get a divorce? It says in the Catechism that getting a divorce is a mortal sin unless it is not your fault.

1. considering that there is a certain failure rate even of vasectomies what man who truly loves his wife would still take the risk with her life? Is his sex life more important than her mortal life? Is their love so shallow it can’t survive without intercourse?
2. he wouldn’t have to abstain forever, just till she was past menopause. I hardly think he would be guilty of a denying the ‘marriage debt’ if that debt puts her life at risk. I can’t quite image the woman getting much pleasure from the marital act if in the back of her mind she’s thinking she’s playing Russian roulette.
3. So lack of sex ruins a marriage? I hope you or your spouse is never in a serious accident or develops an illness that prevents them engaging in the marital embrace or your marriage is over. Remember those vows you take? For better or worse (this means if you can’t have sex you don’t get to call it quits), for richer or poorer, in sickness (physically can’t have sex) and in health, till death do you part.

I wish the Church would be more lenient in cases such as this. It just does not make logical sense to me

.

I can understand, the thought of actually not having sex for years is down right frightening for some people. Of course I never met anyone who ever died from lack of sex…

 

[ahs]

I guess I’m of the ultra-traditionalist camp that thinks that NFP is immoral too, because I REALLY don’t see a difference…

The difference is this:

NFP - I am willing to abstain from sex in order to avoid children at this time. But during the infertile times, I will enjoy the marital embrace with my spouse. When I DO enjoy that embrace, it will be completed naturally, just the way God designed it.

Contraception - I am NOT willing to abstain in order to avoid children at this time, and instead will work to remove the procreative aspect of the sexual act, thereby thwarting by my own power what only God should have power over…since it is HE, not man, who designed the conjugal union.

 

[mrs_ahs]

I agree that the birth control prohibition does not seem logical in certain instances. I think it is easy to see that having children and being open to life is a logically good thing in general.

Where I think the logic breaks down is when pregnancy is so dangerous that the woman will very likely die if she gets pregnant. It just seems illogical that the Church would allow a man to shoot and kill a burglar to save his wife’s life, but he is not allowed to have a vasectomy to save his wife’s life.

In that case, it seems like the Church considers everything he does a mortal sin.

1. Have a vasectomy? Mortal sin.
2. Abstain forever? It is supposed to be a mortal sin to deny the “marriage debt” to your spouse.
3. Ruin your marriage and get a divorce? It says in the Catechism that getting a divorce is a mortal sin unless it is not your fault.

I wish the Church would be more lenient in cases such as this. It just does not make logical sense to me.

If pregnancy is that dangerous for a woman, then she certainly should avoid it. There’s nothing morally problematic there at all. The problem is when pregnancy is avoided by thwarting the marital act via contraception. The gravity of the reasons for avoiding conception do not in any way justify achieving this end with contraception. A mortal sin can NEVER be allowed. Ever. The ends will never justify the means, no matter WHAT the situation.

I have a very hard time understanding the “the wife could die from another pregnancy therefore sterilization should be allowed” argument. Your analogy with the burglar is flawed because it presupposes that sex is necessary to live. A vasectomy is not a life saving procedure. A vasectomy is sterilization. And it is not 100% effective either. Case in point I have a cousin who is the result of a vasectomy that didn’t do what it was “supposed” to do. The only surefire way to ensure that the wife does not become pregnant is by refraining from the cause of pregnancy - sex. So to me all the arguments about him “caring about his wife” (I know those are not your words) are a complete cop-out. If he really wants to save his wife’s life, he can refrain from sex completely during her fertile years and be completely sure that she will not get pregnant. Asking the Church to change thousands of years of truth to make things easier on himself? Selfish.

There are couples who are living this heroic lifestyle in order to remain faithful to Church teaching. I’m sure it is incredibly difficult and heartbreaking. But I can’t imagine asking my spouse to commit a mortal sin with me so that we could still have sex. The goal of marriage is to get each other to heaven.

What do you mean by ruin your marriage, exactly? If you are implying that complete abstinence because the husband cares so much about his wife that he doesn’t want her to die will ruin a marriage, then you have much bigger problems than failing to understand the Church’s teachings on marital sexuality.