Prohibition of non-procreative sex, logically consistent?

[1ke]

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.

I do not have any formal training in philosophy or theology, I have never taken any class in either (except Logic, which is technically in the Philosophy department, 25 years ago when I had to have a “fine arts” credit).

It makes sense to me.

You just have to keep gazing at it until it locks into place. Like one of those 3D pictures so popular in the 90s…

Sex is ordered to procreation and unity (in other words, carried out in the manner God designed it) when it is a completed act of intercourse between a husband and a wife that is unaltered by any action before, during, or after intercourse to render it infertile.

So, if a husband and wife have unaltered, completed intercourse-- it is ordered to procreation and unity of spouses. This is true whether they are subjectively infertile due to disease/defect, past menopause, or currently pregnant. infertile due to time of the monty, or fertile at the moment.

If a husband and wife disrupt (or attempt to) the natural completion of the act-- or substitute something else (manual, oral stimulation to climax, sodomy, etc) for the act-- it is not ordered to procreation.

If a husband and wife attempt to create a child outside a completed act of intercourse, it disorders the twofold elements of the act by violating the unity of the spouses and the right of the child to come from natural generation of the parents in the marital embrace. That is why IVF, et al, violate the sixth commandment.

If people who are not husband and wife have completed intercourse, incomplete (i.e. contracepted) intercourse, or substitute something else for it to achieve orgasm (alone or together) then it is also not ordered to either unity of spouses OR procreation.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

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).

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 idea that “altering” the act is what makes it immoral sounds arbitrary. Either way the point is to prevent children. This puts me in a ****** situation because NFP is what we use…so either I stop using NFP because I can’t seem to be convinced of it’s moral superiority to condoms, or I’m of the ultra-liberal/progressive camp that dissents altogether on the contraceptive issue and use NFP for now until I feel I can’t have anymore children and then use condoms to prevent further pregnancies. My point is I can’t see a difference, either NFP and condoms are both unacceptable or they’re both acceptable. Wearing a condom is no different to me than wearing a blindfold, NFP to prevent pregnancy is no different than closing your eyes to prevent yourself from seeing …either way NFP and condoms prevent conception, and closing your eyes or wearing blindfolds prevent your ability to see things.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

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

Oh my, you totally missed my question there. LOL The question is why is wearing a condom to hinder fertility in order to enjoy sex with your spouse immoral while wearing a blindfold to prevent eyesight while enjoying a game of pin the tail on the donkey with your children isn’t? What’s wrong with hindering our natural abilities, and in this case what’s wrong with hindering them for fun? Cause I think we can all agree sex is fun, but getting pregnant isn’t always fun (unless I’m talking to men here, then maybe you don’t know, but being pregnant SUCKS, although I love babies LOL)

 

[1ke]

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 idea that “altering” the act is what makes it immoral sounds arbitrary. Either way the point is to prevent children.

NFP is not an action. NFP is information.

The decision when using NFP information is *whether or not *to engage in the act. Each time you choose to come together in the marital embrace, you do so by totalling giving to the other in the way God designed it.

Now, you can choose not to come together in the marital act and that is moral.

If you are convicted that you cannot use periodic continence (i.e. the natural cycle God designed in women), then you would be called to **complete **continence when actively needing to space/avoid conception.

NFP to prevent pregnancy

NFP does not prevent pregnancy. NFP is **information **about the woman’s body, as
designed by God. NFP is not an action.

Refraining from intercourse prevents pregnancy-- which is how God designed things!!!

One can decide to engage in the marital embrace or not engage in it any day of the week.

But once deciding to engage, one may not *disorder * it.

 

[1ke]

Oh my, you totally missed my question there. LOL The question is why is wearing a condom to hinder fertility in order to enjoy sex with your spouse immoral while wearing a blindfold to prevent eyesight while enjoying a game of pin the tail on the donkey with your children isn’t?

Apples. Oranges.

From the Catechism:

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

It makes sense to me.

You just have to keep gazing at it until it locks into place. Like one of those 3D pictures so popular in the 90s…

Yes, this is my point. It’s not as easy to understand as abortion. Abortion is murder, it’s the destruction of innocent life, it’s clearly against God’s law to murder, so abortion is sinful, it’s prohibited. I get it. GREAT crystal clear argument. Strong argument.

Then we start talking about contraception and we get terms that are complicated and convoluted arguments about how you can’t separate this from that, and artificial vs natural, and the way we’re designed, and what’s ordered to what, and how it has to be a complete act, and just a bunch of stuff that isn’t clear cut. I can see an argument, I just don’t see a great crystal clear strong argument. At least not anywhere near as clear and strong as the argument against abortion. That bothers me like crazy. I get the feeling that we’re missing part of it - that most of the argument is on some higher philosophical page that I am just not educated enough to understand - or that people are grasping at straws to defend the stance. It could be either - but either way I am not understanding.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

I will not call you stupid. You are obviously not.

The proper order of creation itself was distorted by original sin. Sin didn’t just corrupt our own human nature but ripped apart the very fabric of creation.

Look at the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 through Genesis 3. The order in which things are created tells us who is to serve whom and from where we get our identity and purpose.

In the first creation account, man is above the beasts. God saves the best for last - man - and then his crowning achievement is woman. Then God blesses them. In the second creation account, God allows man to name the beasts. The one who gives you your name is the one from whom you get your identity and purpose. The one who gives you your name is whom you are to serve. Man names the beasts and then God names man.

What the stories are telling us is the general framework of how God ordered things. These are stories about where we get our identity and purpose in life.

***God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. *(Genesis 1:27)

That they were male and female isn’t just an interesting detail which the author thought we would like to know. God could have manifested the divine image any way he wanted, but he did so through our being made male and female. God didn’t make us fat and skinny in the divine image, or black hair and brown hair in the divine image, but male and female in the divine image. The manifestation of the divine image is in our masculinity and femininity, through which man and woman can become a “Gift of self” to the other which results in new life being created. Only mankind can make himself a “Gift of self” to another and only husband and wife can do that fully - sperm, ovaries, and all.

Masculinity and femininity, complimentary to each other, becoming a “Gift of self”, in deep communion with each other and with God, “Naked and without shame”, blessed by God and producing life - that was God’s design and that was the way he chose to manifest his divine image for the creatures he created. .

Everything else is not what God planned. If God had a better plan then he would have given it to us becuase God is perfect. Anything other than God’s perfect plan is less, incomplete, a distortion, or disordered, and is a result of original sin which disordered not only us but all of creation. The result is a creation where many things are found in nature but are not “Natural” in the sense that they are not how God created it “In the beginning.”

-Tim-

 

[bzkoss236]

Oh my, you totally missed my question there. LOL The question is why is wearing a condom to hinder fertility in order to enjoy sex with your spouse immoral while wearing a blindfold to prevent eyesight while enjoying a game of pin the tail on the donkey with your children isn’t? What’s wrong with hindering our natural abilities, and in this case what’s wrong with hindering them for fun? Cause I think we can all agree sex is fun, but getting pregnant isn’t always fun (unless I’m talking to men here, then maybe you don’t know, but being pregnant SUCKS, although I love babies LOL)

Hindering conception morally isn’t so that you two can enjoy sex (per say), it is so that you two can grow closer together, sex is just the method of growing closer. Yes, sex is enjoyable, but that isn’t the point of sex.

In my personal opinion, preventing conception using artificial means places an invisible barrier between the husband and wife that keeps them from truly becoming “one flesh” because they aren’t “giving their all”, someone is holding back. However, if at least one is infertile by means that are not their own (pregnant, cycle, naturally infertile), they are still able to “give their all” as they are not purposefully holding back. It’s like getting an ‘A’ for effort. But using artificial contraception, I’d give a lower grade because they aren’t giving their all. It’s like they’re cheating.

 

[1ke]

Yes, this is my point. It’s not as easy to understand as abortion. Abortion is murder, it’s the destruction of innocent life, it’s clearly against God’s law to murder, so abortion is sinful, it’s prohibited. I get it. GREAT crystal clear argument. Strong argument.

But it is crystal clear TO YOU. It is not at all crystal clear to the average pro-choice person, who can offer convoluted, complex arguments as to why it is not an obvious, easy to understand issue.

Then we start talking about contraception and we get terms that are complicated and convoluted arguments about how you can’t separate this from that, and artificial vs natural, and the way we’re designed, and what’s ordered to what, and how it has to be a complete act, and just a bunch of stuff that isn’t clear cut. I can see an argument, I just don’t see a great crystal clear strong argument. At least not anywhere near as clear and strong as the argument against abortion.

Could it be that the culture has so clouded the issue that what is simple seems complex?

The culture tells us it is OK to want to “have fun” (i.e. sex for recreation and climax) without procreation.

That is not what God tells us.

That bothers me like crazy. I get the feeling that we’re missing part of it - that most of the argument is on some higher philosophical page that I am just not educated enough to understand - or that people are grasping at straws to defend the stance. It could be either - but either way I am not understanding.

It really is simple.

Need to avoid a child at this time? Abstain from the marital embrace.

No need, or desire to be together stronger than desire to avoid a child? Engage in the marital embrace.

That’s it.

Natural family planning only gives you better information on whether or not engaging may result in a child, allowing you to better form your conscience as to whether it is more prudent to override desire and abstain than not.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

NFP is not an action. NFP is information.

The decision when using NFP information is *whether or not *to engage in the act. Each time you choose to come together in the marital embrace, you do so by totalling giving to the other in the way God designed it.

Now, you can choose not to come together in the marital act and that is moral.

If you are convicted that you cannot use periodic continence (i.e. the natural cycle God designed in women), then you would be called to **complete **continence when actively needing to space/avoid conception.

NFP does not prevent pregnancy. NFP is **information **about the woman’s body, as
designed by God. NFP is not an action.

Refraining from intercourse prevents pregnancy-- which is how God designed things!!!

One can decide to engage in the marital embrace or not engage in it any day of the week.

But once deciding to engage, one may not *disorder * it.

Hmm. I hope someone else chimes in on this one because I honestly feel you’re way off here. I mean, it’s called Natural Family Planning. When you plan something, you’re taking an action. As for Natural Family Planning not preventing pregnancy, that sounds like a semantics issue. You don’t want to say it prevents pregnancy because by saying that you’re equating it to contraceptives. NFP is a different tool (information can be a tool, no?) than a condom, but both can be used to prevent pregnancy. The cool thing about NFP is that it can also be used to achieve pregnancy (it’s a more versatile tool!).

As for complete continence, that just sounds problematic. Besides the obvious that the idea sucks, what comes to mind is (and yes I had to google it) 1 Corinthians 7:5, Pauls comments about not denying eachother unless we come to agreement for a time being. What if I am convinced that NFP is immoral but my husband is not convinced of that? How would that be dealt with?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Hindering conception morally isn’t so that you two can enjoy sex (per say), it is so that you two can grow closer together, sex is just the method of growing closer. Yes, sex is enjoyable, but that isn’t the point of sex.

In my personal opinion, preventing conception using artificial means places an invisible barrier between the husband and wife that keeps them from truly becoming “one flesh” because they aren’t “giving their all”, someone is holding back. However, if at least one is infertile by means that are not their own (pregnant, cycle, naturally infertile), they are still able to “give their all” as they are not purposefully holding back. It’s like getting an ‘A’ for effort. But using artificial contraception, I’d give a lower grade because they aren’t giving their all. It’s like they’re cheating.

Well, yes, you’re right. I was using “fun” because it’s shorter, and because it’s true - it is fun to grow closer to your spouse, no?

 

[1ke]

Hmm. I hope someone else chimes in on this one because I honestly feel you’re way off here. I mean, it’s called Natural Family Planning. When you plan something, you’re taking an action. As for Natural Family Planning not preventing pregnancy, that sounds like a semantics issue.

NFP is information that can be used to engage or not engage in intercourse. This decision to engage or not engage could certainly be for either avoiding or achieving pregnancy.

You don’t want to say it prevents pregnancy because by saying that you’re equating it to contraceptives.

No, I don’t want to say it prevents pregnancy because it **doesn’t **prevent pregnancy. It is information. It can help achieve or avoid pregnancy. It can detect and treat female reproductive disease/illness. It can be used for many purposes not related to intercourse at all.

As for complete continence, that just sounds problematic. Besides the obvious that the idea sucks, what comes to mind is (and yes I had to google it) 1 Corinthians 7:5, Pauls comments about not denying eachother unless we come to agreement for a time being. What if I am convinced that NFP is immoral but my husband is not convinced of that? How would that be dealt with?

The spouses would need to come to agreement through prayer and sacrifice.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

But it is crystal clear TO YOU. It is not at all crystal clear to the average pro-choice person, who can offer convoluted, complex arguments as to why it is not an obvious, easy to understand issue.

Could it be that the culture has so clouded the issue that what is simple seems complex?

It seems to me like the tables are turned on this issue - like it is Catholics who are offering convoluted, complex arguments as to why contraception is immoral …

Or maybe you’re right, maybe the culture has clouded the issue. Anyways, thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses. I’ll keep thinking about it.

 

[2LoveAndBeLoved]

Kind of long, but Ven. Fulton Sheen explains it really well in this talk:philotheaonphire.blogspot.com/2012/07/venerable-fulton-sheen-on-birth-control.html
Even if you don’t have the full 23 mins, listen to 4:30-6:30 and 20:45 to the end.

He explains it way better than I could

Pax et bonum

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Kind of long, but Ven. Fulton Sheen explains it really well in this talk:philotheaonphire.blogspot.com/2012/07/venerable-fulton-sheen-on-birth-control.html
Even if you don’t have the full 23 mins, listen to 4:30-6:30 and 20:45 to the end.

He explains it way better than I could

Pax et bonum

Okay, thanks.

 

[Newbie2]

Hmm. I hope someone else chimes in on this one because I honestly feel you’re way off here. I mean, it’s called Natural Family Planning. When you plan something, you’re taking an action. As for Natural Family Planning not preventing pregnancy, that sounds like a semantics issue. You don’t want to say it prevents pregnancy because by saying that you’re equating it to contraceptives. NFP is a different tool (information can be a tool, no?) than a condom, but both can be used to prevent pregnancy. The cool thing about NFP is that it can also be used to achieve pregnancy (it’s a more versatile tool!).

As for complete continence, that just sounds problematic. Besides the obvious that the idea sucks, what comes to mind is (and yes I had to google it) 1 Corinthians 7:5, Pauls comments about not denying eachother unless we come to agreement for a time being. What if I am convinced that NFP is immoral but my husband is not convinced of that? How would that be dealt with?

I would agree that it seems like a semantics disagreement.

“Planning” in itself can certainly be an action. However, the moral action or inaction involves the marital act; in the case of NFP avoiding it during fertile times (which is not an action, rather an inaction).

The morality of “planning” can be morally problematic, i.e. to plan to kill someone. One could also make a case for the planning to use contraception but changing one’s mind could also have some moral implications.

NFP needs to be properly understood in terms of what it is not as well as what it is. What it is not is contraception, which is of course what Catholics are to avoid.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Okay, thanks.

Originally Posted by 2LoveAndBeLoved
Kind of long, but Ven. Fulton Sheen explains it really well in this talk:philotheaonphire.blogspot.com…h-control.html
Even if you don’t have the full 23 mins, listen to 4:30-6:30 and 20:45 to the end.

He explains it way better than I could

Pax et bonum

Oh dear. I just heard 4:30 - 6:30 and I want to bang my head against my desk. …the irony of the analogy! So the Church would oppose mass numbers of people wearing blindfolds and ear plugs…because we shouldn’t prevent our organs to act as they were intended. The Church would against eye control and ear control…this is what Fulton Sheen says here…I’m not making it up. So really the morality of a condom IS equivalent to the morality of a blindfold - in the eyes of Fulton Sheen, at least. The problem is that while I see nothing immoral about a blindfold, apparently the Church does. I wish I wouldn’t have heard that…it sounds too ridiculous to be truth.

Edit: 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.

 

[fbl9]

if i may make a suggestion here, doubtfire, come back to this thread after a couple of days and reread only what 1ke has posted.
the key imo is understanding what “ordered to” means. to me it means
when the marital act is ended it may or may not result in pregency without anything but the spouses themselves.
using a condom is like having a intervening third party

 

[RoseMary131]

I am very troubled by what I perceive to be a logical inconsistency in our faith’s teachings regarding sex.
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?

Hello Doubtfire,

God made us as sexual beings. He also gave us a gift of sexual love, a love that is to be expressed with our whole body and mind in the context of the union of husband and wife.

God joins husband and wife together as one body. This is not simply during the ceremony of the Sacrament of Matrimony, but daily. It is especially expressed during sexual love.

There are two parts of this gift of sexual love.

One part is that the person grows closer to their spouse. (Science even shows us that people develop a closer connection to someone once they increase their physical closeness.) As the married couples engages at the closest means of sexual union, they are designed to grow even closer in mind and love. This is the unitive part of this gift of sexual love.

The other part is the procreative part - the gift of a child - the gift of working together with God to create life with Him. The husband and wife provide the sperm and egg and God provides the soul.

God is the opener and closer of the womb.

Sometimes people block one or both of these two gifts - unitive and procreative. Sexual union can take place by married or unmarried couples who have no interest in being more united to the other person. Likewise, couples can choose to purposely make changes so that they are trying not to include the procreative part of God’s gift during sexual union. The Church teaches that blocking either of these gifts given by God is a misuse of the total gift.

The person who is infertile and engages in sexual love with their spouse is not looking to misuse the gift of sexual union. They are still expressing the unity part of the gift and would be expressing the procreative part if the part existed.

So the pregnant wife having sexual union with her husband is not “scoffing” at the procreative part of the gift. The post menopausal wife is not “scoffing” at that part of the gift.

The Church also teaches that for couples who have “willingly” altered their bodies for the purpose of making themselves infertile - they, too, may engage in sexual union with their spouse. (This is not an endorsement to seek sterilization, ask for forgiveness in confession, then “enjoy” the benefits of sexual union without thoughts towards procreation.) For couples who have sought sterilization and then realized they have gone against God’s plan, they can seek forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. They are not required to reverse the sterilization. They are invited by God to still share the gift of sexual love with their spouse.

God makes the woman’s body to have times of fertility and non-fertility. If the couple decides to engage in sexual union during the non-fertile time, they are not “scoffing” at the procreative part of the gift. They are not “closing” the womb.

If the couple engages in sexual union during the fertile time and do so by attempting to block the sperm from reaching the egg, they are blocking the procreative part of God’s gift. They are accepting the unitive part of His gift, but blocking His procreative part.

The condom says the gift is not exactly what I was hoping for, so I will change it just a bit.
Since the gift of sexuality and sexual love comes from God, we have said we want to adjust His gift just a bit more.

The use of NFP, while it may seem is the same as using the condom, is part of the design of our body as a sexual being. With NFP, we have an increased understanding of when the wive’s body is fertile and when it is not. We are not changing God’s gift of how He designed us. We are “reading” the instructions that came with the gift.

God wants us to enjoy all the parts of this gift of sexual union - the love, the pleasure, the attractiveness of each other, the desires, the closeness, the “becoming one” in body and mind, the gift of new life.

Maybe this can not be fully explained with the intellect. Maybe it takes looking at it from a spiritual point.

May God bless you on this journey.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

eyes are designed by God to see. Eyes that do not see are disordered. Even if you are born with eyes that do not see they are still disordered or unnatural. You would never say that blindness is a natural condition just because some people are born blind.

Sex is designed to produce offspring. Opposite sexes are required to produce offspring. Sexual attraction toward the same sex is a disorder of the sex drive. Essentially they are sexually blind.