Question about procreative union

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unique_name
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll try to reply further later but I’m a wife and mom before an internet conversationalist so I can’t always keep up as well as other people can. But I thought it worth noting that I’m not the one who is arguing here, just the one asking questions.
 
1ke said:
Some would say it is a natural law argument, which is not predicated on religion.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of this “natural law”. Is there a “natural lawbook” somewhere which prescribes and proscribes the do’s and don’t’s in bed? Maybe enumerating the penalties for non-compliance? Because a “law” without enforcing it, is only a “suggestion”. 🙂
1ke said:
But, yes, it is also a religious argument, in that we have a creator who created our sexual faculties for a purpose outside our own self. You asked what the Church taught, and why, I responded to that.
Click to expand...
I did? I am not aware of that. But I thank you for the reply.
1ke said:
You still are not understanding the difference between ordered to procreation and “procreative”. You are still talking in terms of “aiming for procreation” and the “primary objective of procreation”.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is my understanding of the “ordered”. And the word “ordered” is somewhat of a synonym for “commanded”.
1ke said:
What I am talking about is objectively being per se apt for generation, per se ordered to procreation. Per se meaning in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I still don’t understand. Is the word “ordered” the same as “it is intrinsically so?”. But even if it is, why should anyone be “commanded” to include this notion even when there is no chance of achieving that end? (Removed uterus, missing ovaries?) It looks very strange.
 
Komor said:
I am not aware of this “natural law”.
Click to expand...
Google “natural law”.

Charles Rice also has a book you can get on Amazon or through the library.
Komor said:
I did? I am not aware of that.
Click to expand...
I got your post and the OP’s posts confused and thought the OP was responding to me.
Komor said:
And the word “ordered” is somewhat of a synonym for “commanded”.
Click to expand...
No, not that kind of ordered.
Komor said:
Is the word “ordered” the same as “it is intrinsically so?”.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s intrinsic nature and purpose.
 
Unique_name said:
We know that the Church teaches that all sex has to be open to life
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that each marital act must be ordered toward procreation.

“Open to life” gets things fuzzy, is not precise, thus your confusion.
 
Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut! I definitely understand the issues with contraception and am totally on board with that.

The part I still have a hard time grasping is understanding why, in the event that procreation has already taken place, or where pregnancy is impossible (for example, I have a friend with a young son who had ovarian cancer and the only way they could cure it was a complete hysterectomy, as she likely would have died without it. Very tragic, but thankful for her to be healthy again!), that the order would be towards something that can’t happen. If I don’t have a uterus, I can’t procreate. So why is the order of things set so that someone who has no possibility of conceiving children to engage in a sexual act meant to procreate? Does that make sense? It just seems… off? I don’t know how to explain it very well.
 
And just to sound like a broken record, I’m sincerely not trying to stir up an argument. I returned to the Church after 7 years away this past fall but I’m having a hard time working through some of the doctrines and I genuinely just want to understand it as much as I possibly can.

Thanks again for all your responses!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top