Sex for the unitive purpose alone is moral within Catholicism

[setter]

svoboda:

But my initial point is that it is contradictory to say that each individual sex act must at once be unitive and procreative (open to life) and allow NFP.

**In my opinion there is no procreative ** or open-to-lilfe dimension to sex during the infertile times.

But those particular sex acts also have no procreative/open to life component. And that is my point!

Being open to life during an infertile time is being open to the impossible. It would be like if a woman with no ovaries who was not using birth control said she was open to life.

It would be like if a castrated man said that sex with him had a procreative component.

I will point out the obvious:

It takes the procreative potential (component) of both partners to conceive (procreate/reproduce).
Given that the wife has periods of natural infertility does not in any way diminish, extinguish or void the husband’s procreative potential (component).

Hence, periods of natural female infertility does not in any way diminish, void, alter the procreative component/aspect of the marital embrace.

Perhaps in your equation, men need to stand up and be heard!

 

[fix]

svoboda:

You bring up an important question:

What does it mean to be “open to life” in each sex act?

You say that the only way you can fail to be open to life is if you deliberately frustrate fertility (i.e. suppress it with birth control) in that specific sex act.

You’re absolutely right, this definition renders any act that doesn’t use birth control (including the acts of infertile couples and post menopausal couples open to life).

Look at this passage from CCC:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "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:159

Doesn’t the second part contradict the first? Every action which whether in ANTICIPATION of the conjugal act … wehther as an ends or as a means … renders procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

The very practice of NFP which is done in anticipation of sex does renders procreation impossible by restricting sex only to those times when procreation is physically impossible.

How do you explain this?

Personally I think that defining “openness to life” as not using artificial birth control methods to frustrate fertility is a circular and meaningless definition.

It means not frustrating fertility, it doesn’t mean open to life. It has nothing to do with life. Effective NFP methods render the creation of new life nearly impossible, I bet that in the future they will perfect the methods to make the creation of new life 100% impossible.

How can there be a procreative dimension in a sex act that many physically be completely closed to new life, and if the method (NFP) is done precisely to make it completely closed to life in anticipation of the act.

For the record, homosexuals do nothing to frustrate their fertility either. But because of biology the creation of a new life is impossible. Because of biology the creation of a new life during a time when there is no egg to fertilize is also impossible. It doesn’t matter if you frustrate fertility at that time or not, there is no fertility (in the woman) to frustrate. There is no fertile/procreative component to that sex act simply because of biology.

But in addition because of intention. Because NFP couples (sometimes) limit their sex to those biologically-impossible-to-conceive times precisely because they want to have sex and not get pregnant.

How is this open to life? Does it feel open to life to you? Only if you define opennness to life as not using contraception is it open to life.

The fact that they’re not using birth control is irrelevant, there is no fertility there in the first place. Using birth control during an infertile time would not make the sex act less open to life. Procreation is already impossible!

All this goes to definitions and understanding the very foundation of the marital embrace. If we miss the meaning of these acts then our conclusions are all flawed.

 

[fix]

uncleauberon:

Our debate here is really about the meaning of “procreative”.

The question is, “Can sex be “procreative” when fertility is not present ?”

You say - NO by your definition of “procreative”.
The NFP Folks say YES by their definition of “procreative”.

{If your definition is correct - then your 1st thread conclusion would be correct. But, what if the NFP folks’ definition is correct ?}

Are we on the same page in my summary ?

Yes, well done. Understanding this will help show why even if there are a married man and woman and both infertile it would be objectively sinful to use a condom to prevent disease transmission.

 

[vluvski]

svoboda:

With this kind of technology the chance of pregnancy will be reduced to 0. And NFP will be moral. So your corrections with regard to possibility of pregnancy do not change the MORAL argument.

Agreed. I simply wanted to make the statement entirely correct, not just correct as it relates to the present debate.

To elaborate on your technology comments, I would say that the uncertain times or “impossible” pregnancies are likely more a result of extended sperm life than of inability to predict or identify ovulation in the woman. As it is impossible to determine with certainty how long any single sperm can survive, I doubt such technology would improve the success rate much.

As you say, though, the success rate has no bearing on the moral grounds. On that, we can agree.

svoboda:

You distinguish the procreative component from the reproductive component. I would ask you to define both of those terms in a way that makes sense to me, because at the moment I don’t see how they are separate.

By procreative, it is meant that things are functioning in the way God intended (in favor of His creation). This type of language can be applied to many situations, not just relating to sexuality. One might say that an artificial heart valve is procreative because it helps the heart function in the way it was designed to function. Certain fertility treatments could be called procreative if they are designed to overcome problems that prevent conception as it was intented.

Your question about whether it is immoral to use contraceptives during infertile times is a good one. I would ask, “Does this help or prevent my body in its cycle of fertility and infertility?”

I’ll deal with the easy part first. Men are designed to be fertile pretty much 100% of the time. Anything that renders them infertile (barrier methods, spermicide) will always act against God’s design for men to be very fertile.

I would say in the case of the woman, any treatment must be examined in light of the entire cycle, not just the infertile or fertile time. The infertile times serve a purpose that benefits the fertile times; they do not occur simply for the sake of being infertile. If (hypothetically speaking) a woman has some kind of hormonal imbalance that necessitates homone supplements to artificially create a menstrual cycle, I would think that this would be licit. However, this is not what contraceptives do.

If, on the other hand, the hormones are being taken simply to “make sure” that fertile times remain infertile, I think this would be illicit because she is simply trying to interfere with something she has every reason to believe is working properly. The pill makes the body behave similar to when it is already pregnant, so the body cannot be preparing for pregnancy at this time. Since infertile times are for the purpose of preparing the body for pregnancy, current contraceptives would not enhance the body’s purpose.

 

[fix]

"every matrimonial act should be
‘intrinsically’ ordered to life, to the transmission of life, even if in
actual fact, owing to an accidental and extrinsic reason, it must remain
barren."10 A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of
procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of
life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or
cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or
age or disease. A conjugal act respectful of what Pope John Paul II calls
the “nuptial meaning” of the body and of the willing submissiveness of
sexed humanity to the gift of fertility11 is one that is “open” to the
transmission of life. There is a significant “moral” difference between a
conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease
and one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the free choice of the
spouses.
CHURCH TEACHING AND THE MORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION

This is what I have been trying to say.

 

[svoboda]

vluvski:

By procreative, it is meant that things are functioning in the way God intended (in favor of His creation). This type of language can be applied to many situations, not just relating to sexuality. One might say that an artificial heart valve is procreative because it helps the heart function in the way it was designed to function. Certain fertility treatments could be called procreative if they are designed to overcome problems that prevent conception as it was intented.

This is a very interesting definition of procreative. I would ask you if Pius XI would have agreed:

vatican.va/holy_father/p…onnubii_en.html

Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence ** which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end ** and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

I think your definition of procreative is very weak, because it actually allows artificial contraception in some cases. For example, you say that fixing the heart is really procreative because it helps it to function the way God intended. Well, women whose cycles are very irregular and whose infertile times are unpredictable can say that they will use artificial contraception to have normal cycles the way God intended.

From everything I’ve read procreative and unitive means pro-conceiving-a-new-life and untive. Even Webster defines the word procreative in this manner:

Main Entry: pro·cre·ate
Pronunciation: -"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- forth + creare to create – more at PRO-, CREATE
**transitive senses : to beget or bring forth (offspring) : ** PROPAGATE
**intransitive senses : to beget or bring forth offspring : ** REPRODUCE

• pro·cre·ation /"prO-krE-'A-sh&n/ noun
• pro·cre·ative /'prO-krE-"A-tiv/ adjective
• pro·cre·ator /-"A-t&r/ noun

Do you think when they were writing/translating the encyclicals, when they were translating/writing the Catechism etc. they used this word intending it to mean something other than its defintion, knowing that virtually every single person would read it and take it to mean the dictionary definition?

Pius XI thought procreation (i.e. begetting of children) was the primary purpose of sex, Vatican II recognized the importance of the unitive component and said that procreative and unitive is equally important.

In its context procreative here means begetting of children, not in harmony with creation. The idea of making sex procreative and unitive at the same time was a softening of Piux XI’s stance that it was primarily for the begetting of children and secondary

husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end (i.e. begetting of children or procreation)

NFP couples have sex for the unitive purpose alone. But you are right, they are using the incredible scientific cleverness of human beings to work “within the system” to isolate their sex acts to sterile times with the intent of enjoying the unitive component without the risk of pregnancy.

My argument is not a pro-contraception argument, I am arguing that there is no pro-creative (for the begetting of Children aka Pius XI) component to sex during the infertile times. There is just the unitive, and NFP couples work so hard measuring to achieve this effect: unitive without the kids.

The Church should not teach that each individual sex act must AT THE SAME TIME be unitive and procreative (aka open to begetting a new child). They should acknowlege that NFP couples, infertile couples, post-menopausal couples, pregnant couples etc. are having sex for the unitive purpose alone, because it is emotinally powerful, because it is physically pleasing, and simply because it is pretty darn fun.

 

[bear06]

It’s not our definition of procreative, it’s the Church’s. This is where your arguments fail. You want to use your definition. This is why the Church will never be right in your eyes but is completely on target in our’s. Then we just have to go back to “why debate this when we don’t share the same Faith?” Procreative is working with God’s creation not against it.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

It’s not our definition of procreative, it’s the Church’s. This is where your arguments fail. You want to use your definition. This is why the Church will never be right in your eyes but is completely on target in our’s. Then we just have to go back to “why debate this when we don’t share the same Faith?” Procreative is working with God’s creation not against it.

Please go and read Pius XI’s Casti Connubii which you linked me to. He makes it pretty clear what the purposes of sex are, the primary being the begetting of children not being in harmony with nature.

Let me repeat: do you think that the translators and the Church would have used a word that has only one dictionary meaning with the intent to mean something completely different?

Come on, if they wanted to say what Vluvski meant they would have said it. they would not have used a word that every single english speaking person understands to mean begetting an offspring.

The truth is that the Church’s teaching contradicts itself and you need to redefine plain words to get out of this logical hole.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

This is a very interesting definition of procreative. I would ask you if Pius XI would have agreed:

The Church still teaches the primary end of marriage is children.

I think your definition of procreative is very weak, because it actually allows artificial contraception in some cases.

No, it never allows it.

For example, you say that fixing the heart is really procreative because it helps it to function the way God intended. Well, women whose cycles are very irregular and whose infertile times are unpredictable can say that they will use artificial contraception to have normal cycles the way God intended.

Hormones may be used to “regulate” the cycle, that does not mean they may be used to contracept. In the first case they may be restoring the body to a healthy state. In the second they are interfering with a healthy system.

From everything I’ve read procreative and unitive means pro-conceiving-a-new-life and untive. Even Webster defines the word procreative in this manner:

You need to do more reading.

Do you think when they were writing/translating the encyclicals, when they were translating/writing the Catechism etc. they used this word intending it to mean something other than its defintion, knowing that virtually every single person would read it and take it to mean the dictionary definition?

The great think about the Church is we have recourse to an authentic authority to ask questions.

Pius XI thought procreation (i.e. begetting of children) was the primary purpose of sex, Vatican II recognized the importance of the unitive component and said that procreative and unitive is equally important.

I do not know that is true. Perhaps someone else can help me out. My understanding is the primary end of marriage is children. The act has two aspects that is not in question i do not think it ever was?

NFP couples have sex for the unitive purpose alone.

No they do not. That is why they use NFP so they do not separate the act.

My argument is not a pro-contraception argument, I am arguing that there is no pro-creative (for the begetting of Children aka Pius XI) component to sex during the infertile times. There is just the unitive, and NFP couples work so hard measuring to achieve this effect: unitive without the kids.

You are incorrect.

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

Please go and read Pius XI’s Casti Connubii which you linked me to. He makes it pretty clear what the purposes of marriage and sex are.

Let me repeat: do you think that the translators and the Church would have used a word that has only one dictionary meaning with the intent to mean something completely different?

Come on, if they wanted to say what Vluvski meant they would have said it. they would not have used a word that every single english speaking person understands to mean begetting an offspring.

The truth is that the Church’s teaching contradicts itself and you need to redefine plain words to get out of this logical hole.

Hello?! Did you see the quotes? Let’s just face it. We’re not going to agree.

Logic dictates that this is what they mean by procreative since they allow NFP. If the Church didn’t mean this then you would be correct and sex would be wrong during any infertile period. BTW, Priests for Life acts with full Papal blessings and was established for the promotion of all life using Humanae Vitae as it’s guide. The past 2 popes have known quite well what Fr. Pavone teaches and neither have corrected his “errors” as you have seen them. Fr. Pavone is completely loyal to the Holy Fathers and follows their leads exclusively. Like I said, Theology of the Body would be a good read for you.

 

[vluvski]

svoboda:

Well, women whose cycles are very irregular and whose infertile times are unpredictable can say that they will use artificial contraception to have normal cycles the way God intended.

You are sorely mistaken if you believe that artificial contraception will give you normal cycles. Some theologians who are generally regarded as faithful to the magesterium have objectively said that the hormones found in drugs like the pill can licitly be used to kind of jump start the woman’s menstrual cycle. However, on a more practical level, I remain to be convinced that this is a safe and effective medical solution to irregular cycles or infertility.

Plus, I already addressed this in my previous post. If hormone supplements (note: NOT contraception) are necessary in order to simulate the natural menstrual cycle, then it would seem that these aids would be permissible in the church. They do not supress the body’s fertility during fertile times nor the body’s ability to prepare for pregnancy during infertile times. Again, this is not what contraceptives do!

You are also forgetting that in a spiritual sense, offspring does not only refer to baby humans, but to spiritual fruits as well. Do not expect the dictionary definition of any word to fully encompass the Church’s teaching on complex moral issues, or you will be dangerously mislead.

 

[svoboda]

Okay, obviously every single Catholic person here wants to say that post menopausal couples who know that they will never have another child, pregnant couples who know that their sex acts will never lead to conception, and NFP couples who (if their methods were perfect) deliberately isolate their sex acts to times when they knew for sure they will not conceive are somehow open to life, are somehow having sex for its two purposes (begetting of children/procreative and unitive) AT THE SAME TIME.

I don’t think there is a point in discussing it further.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Okay, obviously every single Catholic person here wants to say that post menopausal couples who know that they will never have another child, pregnant couples who know that their sex acts will never lead to conception, and NFP couples who (if their methods were perfect) deliberately isolate their sex acts to times when they knew for sure they will not conceive are somehow open to life, are somehow having sex for its two purposes (begetting of children/procreative and unitive) AT THE SAME TIME.

I don’t think there is a point in discussing it further.

finally

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

Okay, obviously every single Catholic person here wants to say that post menopausal couples who know that they will never have another child, pregnant couples who know that their sex acts will never lead to conception, and NFP couples who (if their methods were perfect) deliberately isolate their sex acts to times when they knew for sure they will not conceive are somehow open to life, are somehow having sex for its two purposes (begetting of children/procreative and unitive) AT THE SAME TIME.

I don’t think there is a point in discussing it further.

This is proof of why your definition of procreative is not the same as the Church’s. The Church says that all marital embraces contain the procreative and unitive aspects. It doesn’t say that the infertile couple lacks either one of these aspects in their maritial embrace. Proof enough for you yet that you are using a different definition and that the Church is not contradictory in this teaching? I’m not saying that you have to agree with it but to say the Church is being contradictory is wrong.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

This is proof of why your definition of procreative is not the same as the Church’s. The Church says that all marital embraces contain the procreative and unitive aspects. It doesn’t say that the infertile couple lacks either one of these aspects in their maritial embrace. Proof enough for you yet that you are using a different definition and that the Church is not contradictory in this teaching? I’m not saying that you have to agree with it but to say the Church is being contradictory is wrong.

Or proof enough that the Church is trying very, very hard to twist definitions to remain in harmony with Piux XI “primary purpose is the begetting of children, secondary is mutual help, love, and fight against concupiscence”
while at the same time allowing pregnant couples, infertile couples, NFP couples etc. to enjoy the unitive components of sex for their own sake knowing for sure that there can be no children creating during the act.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

svoboda,

Again, couples using NFP to delay pregnancy are not only having sex for the unitive aspect. Whether or not you agree with the Church’s use of the word “procreative” does not change how the Church defines it or how that definition fits into the Church’s teaching.

In the end it doesn’t really matter what Webster says. The Church says that God is love. Which also means that love is God. I don’t think Webster would agree.

Given this, you cannot use Webster’s definition of the word to show that Church teaching contradicts itself. You would have to use the Church’s definition of the word if you wanted to prove that. But when properly defined, Church teaching never contradicts itself.

Why do you bring up Pope Pius XI at all? His quote affirms that sex between married couples must be both unitive and procreative… That’s Church teaching.

Also, the Church does not deny that a woman may morally take contraceptive for health reasons. The only stipulation is that she cannot risk an early abortion and must either use NFP extremely conservatively (if possible) or abstain until she no longer needs to use the pill. However, the pill often covers up the symptoms of a woman’s irregular cycles and does not cure the problem. In my opinion, women should first seek the cause of their irregular cycles and treat that cause rather than covering up the problem.

Finally, God made women infertile most of the time. Men are always fertile. Why did He bother to do that? If He wanted sex to be only for creating new lives, He would have made both fertile all the time. If He wanted sex to be only unitive, He would have made both infertile all the time. But He wanted sex to be for both!

God bless.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

svoboda:

Or proof enough that the Church is trying very, very hard to twist definitions to remain in harmony with Piux XI “primary purpose is the begetting of children, secondary is mutual help, love, and fight against concupiscence”

The Church doesn’t twist definitions in order to fit teaching in with what one pope said. The Church explains complex realities in our world and the mysteries of God. That’s never easy to do, and it may lead to the Church defining words a bit differently from the secular world.

svoboda:

while at the same time allowing pregnant couples, infertile couples, NFP couples etc. to enjoy the unitive components of sex for their own sake knowing for sure that there can be no children creating during the act.

Again, you’re using your own definition of procreative.

 

[svoboda]

ElizabethAnne:

Again, you’re using your own definition of procreative.

Fine, I’ll use yours. NFP couples, pregnant couples, post menopausal couples etc. are having sex because it is emotionally intense, because it is physically pleasurable, becaues it is fun, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME being in comformity with nature, not manipulating nature directly, but in the case of NFP couples working within the system (which requires a lot of measuring and understanding) to enjoy the fun of sex without getting pregnant.

Contraceptive couples prevent the sperm from meeting the egg to enjoy the fun of sex wtihout getting pregnant.

Either way, the aim of both is to enjoy sex without the kids, and the result both achieve is fun sex without pregnancy.

One carefully measures every fertile sign and avoids sex when pregnancy can happen, the other uses a condom to prevent sperm from making its way to fertilize the egg.

One thing this does destroy is the idea that contraceptive couples are somehow lustful and selfish, they’re both doing it to have fun sex without the pregnancy that could otherwise result.

And NFP couples are in no way open to creating a new life, with good enough methods they can completely eliminate the possibility of creating a new life. And this is the very reason why NFP was invented.

It’s all about the fun, the pleasure, the happiness without the consequences of pregnancy. But of course they do not MANIPULATE their bodies with birth control, they just carefully measure to be safe from pregnancy.

And before anyone brings up “serious reasons”, if they don’t want to have sex just for the pleasure they can abstain until the serious reasons not to get pregnant are gone.

 

[migurl]

I apologize if this seems harsh, but you are dead wrong. NFP was not created to NOT get pregnant, it was created so that couples could know when they could get pregnant. NFP can be used for the opposite, but it is only accepted for approved grave reasons. Even then, the possibilty for life is not 100% gone. Couples may think to themselves "We don’t have enough $ to have kids…) But her fertile time will come, they look into eachothers eyes and realize that God will provide if they get pregnant. In the end, NFP used to get pregnant or avoid it still is saying to God “I put it in your hands, whatever you Will, be done.” NFP is misused often and there are many catholics who use it like condoms, they are commiting the same sin as those using contraceptives. It is all about the intent. I plan on attempting to use NFP for the first 6 months to a yr b/c I am still in college and I would like to finish asap so I can have kids without worrying about school too. My plan is to graduate asap and then get pregnant. But, if God wills me to get pregnant before then, I will be blessed with showing of my pregnant state at one of the most liberal, feministic college campus in this country. I will walk with pride .

 

[setter]

Fine, I’ll use yours. NFP couples, pregnant couples, post menopausal couples etc. are having sex because it is emotionally intense, because it is physically pleasurable, becaues it is fun, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME being in comformity with nature, not manipulating nature directly, but in the case of NFP couples working within the system (which requires a lot of measuring and understanding) to enjoy the fun of sex without getting pregnant.

Contraceptive couples prevent the sperm from meeting the egg to enjoy the fun of sex wtihout getting pregnant.

Either way, the aim of both is to enjoy sex without the kids, and the result both achieve is fun sex without pregnancy.

One carefully measures every fertile sign and avoids sex when pregnancy can happen, the other uses a condom to prevent sperm from making its way to fertilize the egg.

One thing this does destroy is the idea that contraceptive couples are somehow lustful and selfish, they’re both doing it to have fun sex without the pregnancy that could otherwise result.

You were doing well up to this point, then …

And NFP couples are in no way open to creating a new life

, with good enough methods they can completely eliminate the possibility of creating a new life. And this is the very reason why NFP was invented.

It’s all about the fun, the pleasure, the happiness without the consequences of pregnancy. But of course they do not MANIPULATE their bodies with birth control, they just carefully measure to be safe from pregnancy.
This is where you referenced your own dictionary again. :banghead:

And before anyone brings up “serious reasons”, if they don’t want to have sex just for the pleasure they can abstain until the serious reasons not to get pregnant are gone.

Care to try again?