Sex and Procreation

[SusanneT]

Can I ask a simple question ? Is it a sin to engage in sexual intimacy when one or other or both of you really do not want it to lead to conception - even if you do nothing to actively prevent it happenning, or do no more than practise NFP ?

So althought you are physically - to a greater or lessor extent ‘open’ to life mentally you are against it ?

 

[Nate13]

I’m copy pasting this from another thread. It was written by thewanderer.

From the encyclical Humane Vitae

Quote:
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Quote:
The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

In other words, the Church teaches that it is fine to use ours intellect to regulate births through natural means if you have a sufficient reason. Contracepting is never allowed for the purpose of preventing life.

Since the Church does not teach that every marital act must include the intention to conceive it is not in any way contrary to the laws of nature which make it so that women are not always fertile, the Church’s teaching, rather, follows the laws of nature. It recognizes that there is naturally an infertile period in the woman’s cycle, as well as the fact that humans are rational by nature. This leads to the conclusion that it is natural for people to use their reason with respect to the procreative aspect of their marital relations.

I suspect that this is where your real question comes up. What is the difference, with respect to the Church’s teachings, between NFP and Artificial Birth Control? If they are both used to prevent conception, why is one of them considered to negate the procreative aspect of marital relations but not the other?

The answer to this question comes back to a good hard look at nature. Procreation is seen to be an end of the marital act because this is the natural means of the propagation of the species. The unity of spouses is seen to be an end of the marital act because of the physical, emotional, psychological etc closeness that naturally comes from the marital act. However, nature is not designed such that every marital act will (if everything is working correctly) result in a new life. Because of this it is not intrinsic to the marital act that it must conceive (if everything is working correctly). This leads to the conclusion that NFP is ok for the spacing of births when sufficient reasons are present.
The next question, why is Artificial Birth Control not ok?
Artificial Birth Control interferes with nature by preventing conception even during those times when a couple would otherwise naturally conceive.

In other words, contraception etc is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature, NFP is fine in certain situations because it follows the laws of nature.

I hope this is helpful!

In short not every act of sex must be done with the intent to conceive. That is not what is meant by “being open to life”. Rather every act must be “ordered towards procreation” by which is meant basically that every act must be performed as it was designed by God to be performed.

 

[JimG]

Can I ask a simple question ? Is it a sin to engage in sexual intimacy when one or other or both of you really do not want it to lead to conception - even if you do nothing to actively prevent it happenning, or do no more than practise NFP ?

So althought you are physically - to a greater or lessor extent ‘open’ to life mentally you are against it ?

Marital intercourse is by its very nature open to life. It’s the way it is designed. Unless one takes some un-natural method to specifically try to interfere with its natural end, it can’t help but be open to life, as an act, regardless of one’s mental state.

One need not be in a mental state of desiring conception every single time. One might even hope that no conception occurs, but there is no sin in that. There is only sin in interfering with the natural process.

 

[fpt]

Can I ask a simple question ? Is it a sin to engage in sexual intimacy when one or other or both of you really do not want it to lead to conception - even if you do nothing to actively prevent it happenning, or do no more than practise NFP ?

So althought you are physically - to a greater or lessor extent ‘open’ to life mentally you are against it ?

Per se It is not a sin, I am certain of this statement

Why? Because, marriage and its materialisation - conjugal making love between wife and husband - is love that includes sexual union or better to say sexual conjugal love, body union within catholic marriage.

 

[1ke]

No.