Sex for the unitive purpose alone is moral within Catholicism

[ReformedCatholic]

I initially caught this discussion on the thread about the problems in Africa and the Roman Church’s stand on contraception.

Frankly, I believe Svoboda makes some very good points. But no one has yet really zoned in on where the Roman Church’s stance on contraception, and sex in general, comes from. Does anyone actually know?

And I mean originally- I’m talking the days of Augustine. I think this is necessary to get to the heart of the “sex is bad” and “contraception is a ‘grave evil’ and a ‘mortal sin’” fallacy. Any takers?

 

[vluvski]

svoboda:

But what does it mean for there to be a procreative component to sex?

Restricting sex to times when there is no egg to fertilize greatly limits (not eliminates) the reproductive (not procreative) component because reproduction (not procreation) is biologically ***highly unlikely *** (not impossible) at that time.

NFP users sometimes deliberately have sex only when there new life is physically impossible. How can that be open to life or procreative?

There is no fertility to frustrate at those times.

I have edited your post to make it correct. Please note that I have already brought up my “beef” with the argument that NFP is “open to life.” Open to life does not mean what most people (including you) think it means (which is understandable IMO), so it makes a very poor argument. Even saying procreative is misleading because procreative is easily confused with reproductive.

 

[svoboda]

vluvski:

Restricting sex to times when there is no egg to fertilize greatly limits (not eliminates) the reproductive (not procreative) component because reproduction (not procreation) is biologically highly unlikely (not impossible) at that time.

But this is simply a shortcoming of present NFP methods, and as all agree the morality of NFP does not depend on the low probability of pregnancy.

Perhaps in the future we will have scanners (aka Star Trek) that will enable couples to know exactly what each egg is doing and when, maybe they will be able to predict with certainty not just ovulation, but whether ovulation will happen in 10 days.

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.

–

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.

Having sex during a time when pregnancy is biologically impossible is not procreative or open to life any more than homosexual sex is procreative and open to life.

The fact that it doesn’t thward fertility with artificial means is a moot point because there is no fertility there to thwart. They could go ahead and use the pill, or put an IUD in, it would change nothing because the woman is not fertile.

 

[bear06]

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

This info was already provide to you in one of these threads! Fr. Pavone explains:

priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html

1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it. Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility – patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act – they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

Look at this passage from CCC:

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.

Wow! You’re right! The Church didn’t think this through and realize their contradiction. Why don’t you just admit that you’re not understanding what the Church is saying? Of course they’re not contradicting themselves. They’ve had 2 additions of this catechism and they’ve both said the same thing. YOU DON’T GET IT!

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.

This has been said time and again but many people use NFP to conceive.

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

Not circular to me so why are you continuing this conversation?

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.

Once again, trying reading Fr. Pavone.

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.

Once again, homosexuality is against God’s natural law as is ABC. NFP works with God’s natural law, not against it.

 

[bear06]

If thwarting fertility is the sin, then you are right, the NFP couple commits no sin. They wouldn’t even commit a sin if the woman took the pill during the infertile time. There would be no fertility there to thwart.

Once again you are not aware of how the pill works or fails. Quite often there is fertility and conception occurs. If you’ll notice, even the manufacturers don’t say that it’s 100% effective. Not only that, much of the time it’s only effective in getting rid of a conceived child. It’s an abortifacient and not even the drug companies deny this.

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.

So, are you saying it’s wrong to have sex during the infertile periods? Are you saying it’s wrong not to have sex during fertile periods?

I think you need to go back to the dieting vs. bullemia analogy.

 

[bear06]

ReformedCatholic:

I initially caught this discussion on the thread about the problems in Africa and the Roman Church’s stand on contraception.

Frankly, I believe Svoboda makes some very good points. But no one has yet really zoned in on where the Roman Church’s stance on contraception, and sex in general, comes from. Does anyone actually know?

And I mean originally- I’m talking the days of Augustine. I think this is necessary to get to the heart of the “sex is bad” and “contraception is a ‘grave evil’ and a ‘mortal sin’” fallacy. Any takers?

Yes, they have but svoboda doesn’t buy that either. Here’s a good article on it (one that takes on svoboda’s claims) and CA has their own too:

soma.npa.uiuc.edu/~dbranch/script_cath/BC.HTM
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[svoboda]

ReformedCatholic:

I initially caught this discussion on the thread about the problems in Africa and the Roman Church’s stand on contraception.

Frankly, I believe Svoboda makes some very good points. But no one has yet really zoned in on where the Roman Church’s stance on contraception, and sex in general, comes from. Does anyone actually know?

And I mean originally- I’m talking the days of Augustine. I think this is necessary to get to the heart of the “sex is bad” and “contraception is a ‘grave evil’ and a ‘mortal sin’” fallacy. Any takers?

I posted a link to a website with “dissident” Catholics arguing against the teaching on birth control in another thread

Going on memory here, but some of the arguments they make go back to the natural philosophers, who allegedly observed animal sexuality, noticed that animals did it for procreation, and concluded that humans engaged in deviant behavior when they did it for non-procreative reasons. (Now this is known to be false, chimps for example have sex for social reasons, masturbate, and even have homosexual sex.)

Around the type of important men such as Augustine gnosticism was somewhat powerful. Agustine himself was a member of a gnostic sect for many years, and they viewed sex as evil.

Agustine also had a lot of lustful experiences and for him it was his greatest sin. Augustine influenced the Church a lot.

Further in the past it was believed that the sperm provided all the material to form a new human being, Aquinas believed this, it’s not hard to infer from this type of teaching that doing anything that throws sperm away is sinful.

Until Vatican II the unitive components of sex and marriage were not given their due. Vatican II happened very recently!

Personally I believe the Church is operating under outdated understandings of science with respect to its prohibitions of spilling of sperm, and outdated understandings of the role of unitiy/love/emotion/pleasure in the conjugal act.

Tthe birth control “commission” recommended that the teaching on contraception be changed, most Catholics and virtually all non-Catholics reject the teaching of the Church on this matter.

Something is up.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

I just made this exact point on another thread for which I was attacked. Oh, well.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

This info was already provide to you in one of these threads! Fr. Pavone explains:

NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it.

In the words of Fr. Pavone, “The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it.” Careful measurement with the intent to have sex only when procreation is physically impossible for all intents and purposes closes the act to life. It’s about as procreative during those time as homosexual sexual relations: the possibility of life is 0 (and if it’s not then it’s just a shortcoming of the method, a more advanced method could very well give 0 chance).

Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility.

NFP couples cannot act against their fertility because during the infertile times THERE IS NO FERTILITY TO ACT AGAINST. Even if they went ahead and used an IUD, there would be no difference. Why am I even bringing this up? Because it highlights the fact that there is no fertile/procreative/life-giving component during the infertile times. So much so that using artificial birth control methods would change nothing.

If OPENNESS TO LIFE is what is required, then this argument fails, because the fact that pregnancy is physically impossible when the woman is infertile renders the act sterile, there can be no procreative/life-giving dimension to it.

The only way there will be a procreative/life-giving dimension is if the method is imperfect and they happen to make a mistake and have sex during a time when fertility is possible.

They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life).

Yes they do, by nearly 100% successful methods they separate the fertile times from the infertile times and have sex when procreation is physically impossible. (And if it is possible then its due to method imperfections.)

Their sex during the infertile times is purely unitive, and they intend it to be so becaues they deliberately measure and avoid the fertile times.

They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility – patterns placed there by God Himself.

And birth control inventors simply used their natural, God given intelligence to discover a way to legitimately limit the size of their families.

In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act – they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

But since sex for unitive purposes alone is perfectly fine in the case of NFP, what is wrong with deliberately isolating unitive purposes at other times? The couple can still abstain for spiritual reasons from time to time when there is need for it.

Wow! You’re right! The Church didn’t think this through and realize their contradiction. Why don’t you just admit that you’re not understanding what the Church is saying? Of course they’re not contradicting themselves. They’ve had 2 additions of this catechism and they’ve both said the same thing. YOU DON’T GET IT!

Wouldn’t be the first time human beings contradicted themselves.

Once again, trying reading Fr. Pavone.

I read what he had to say, and was not convinced.

Once again, homosexuality is against God’s natural law as is ABC. NFP works with God’s natural law, not against it.

I wouldn’t be so sure. If homosexuality is biological, not under the control of homosexual individuals, then it could very well be what God intended.

There is homosexuality in the animal world as well.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

Once again you are not aware of how the pill works or fails. Quite often there is fertility and conception occurs. If you’ll notice, even the manufacturers don’t say that it’s 100% effective. Not only that, much of the time it’s only effective in getting rid of a conceived child. It’s an abortifacient and not even the drug companies deny this.

Oh yes, but notice how I said use the pill during INFERTILE times. No matter what the pill does during that time, there will no contraception, there will be no abortion, there will be nothing becuase there will be no egg for the sperm to fertilize. They can load up on the pill, put an IUD in, and it would change nothing. The act would remain 100% sterile because the woman would be 100% infertile.

Taking every single form of contraception during the infertile time would change nothing because in the infertile time there is no possibility of life because there is no egg. There can be no procreation, no life-giving.

I agree that using abortifacent contraception during fertile times is immoral precisely because it may cause an early abortion.

So, are you saying it’s wrong to have sex during the infertile periods? Are you saying it’s wrong not to have sex during fertile periods?

I think you need to go back to the dieting vs. bullemia analogy.

I am saying that to be consistent the Church must either forbid sex during the infertile periods, after menopause, and for infertile couples and allow it only when sex is unitive and procreative AT THE SAME TIME (i.e. when the couple is unitive and there is the possibility that their loving union will result in a new life).

Or they need to change and say that sex for unitive purposes alone is not immoral.

As it stands infertile couples, post menopausal couples, and NFP couples who have sex only during the infertile times are having sex because of its emotional, physical, mental etc. benefits (i.e. ONLY UNITIVE), while at the same time knowing that the act cannot be life-giving due to biology and in the case of NFP couples intending precisely that.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Makes sense to me.

 

[svoboda]

By the way, this is not an argument for birth control (edit on request of other user: artificial contraception)

Whether it is okay to suppress fertility to have sex for the unitive purpose alone is another moral question. (And the only argument against that is the “complete gift of self” argument.)

But in my opinion it is clear that it IS moral to have sex for the unitive purpose alone. NFP couples when they use infertile times, post-menopausal couples, and infertile couples do it.

The very intent of NFP is to have sex to enjoy its unitive benefits without getting pregnant (there could be very seroius reasons to avoid pregnancy, and if not unitive benefts then why are you having sex during a time when conception is impossible), to separate the unitive from the procreative, and this is precisely what it achieves: sex during times when fertility is impossible and there can be no question of bringing a new life into the world (again, assuming a perfect method, but as decided before the morality of it doesn’t depend on method effectiveness).

And calling NFP a “natural” method is a mistake, there is nothing natural about making countless measurements and restricting your sex acts to times when the woman is sterile. It’s no wonder that this method has been invented in the 20th century.

It requires more scientific understanding and time investment than a condom does.

 

[bear06]

In the words of Fr. Pavone, “The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it.” Careful measurement with the intent to have sex only when procreation is physically impossible for all intents and purposes closes the act to life. It’s about as procreative during those time as homosexual sexual relations: the possibility of life is 0 (and if it’s not then it’s just a shortcoming of the method, a more advanced method could very well give 0 chance).

So, you are saying that I made myself infertile during the infertile periods? That’s the only possible way I could “close life” during the infertile periods.

NFP couples cannot act against their fertility because during the infertile times THERE IS NO FERTILITY TO ACT AGAINST. Even if they went ahead and used an IUD, there would be no difference. Why am I even bringing this up? Because it highlights the fact that there is no fertile/procreative/life-giving component during the infertile times. So much so that using artificial birth control methods would change nothing.

I’m sure that those who got pregnant while using NFP would greatly disagree with using and IUD!!!

And birth control inventors simply used their natural, God given intelligence to discover a way to legitimately limit the size of their families.

They use their natural God given talents to ALTER God’s design. This is one of the differences between NFP and ABC. NFP works with God’s design and ABC tries to alter it. Are we trying to cooperate with God’s design or change it?

But since sex for unitive purposes alone is perfectly fine in the case of NFP, what is wrong with deliberately isolating unitive purposes at other times? The couple can still abstain for spiritual reasons from time to time when there is need for it.

Unaltered sex is ALWAYS procreative and unitive.

I wouldn’t be so sure. If homosexuality is biological, not under the control of homosexual individuals, then it could very well be what God intended.

I’m pretty sure that Soddom and Gammorah dispelled this myth.

There is homosexuality in the animal world as well

We are not animals.

So, I’ve asked you this before but are you married? Have you read the Theology of the Body? Do you have children?

 

[bear06]

Oh yes, but notice how I said use the pill during INFERTILE times. No matter what the pill does during that time, there will no contraception, there will be no abortion, there will be nothing becuase there will be no egg for the sperm to fertilize. They can load up on the pill, put an IUD in, and it would change nothing. The act would remain 100% sterile because the woman would be 100% infertile.

You can’t just use the pill for infertile periods. If you don’t take it everyday, it doesn’t work. Also, there is no possible way to know if God has altered your cycle and you are indeed in an infertile period.

Taking every single form of contraception during the infertile time would change nothing because in the infertile time there is no possibility of life because there is no egg. There can be no procreation, no life-giving.

You’re making an impossible argument.

I agree that using abortifacent contraception during fertile times is immoral precisely because it may cause an early abortion.

How great of you. That said, a women on the pill doesn’t just start and stop the pill and a women who has an IUD implanted doesn’t take it in and out on a whim!

I am saying that to be consistent the Church must either forbid sex during the infertile periods, after menopause, and for infertile couples and allow it only when sex is unitive and procreative AT THE SAME TIME (i.e. when the couple is unitive and there is the possibility that their loving union will result in a new life).

That’s because you’re goofy. :whacky:

Or they need to change and say that sex for unitive purposes alone is not immoral.

They don’t need to say this because every marital act that is not altered is always unitive and procreative.

As it stands infertile couples, post menopausal couples, and NFP couples who have sex only during the infertile times are having sex because of its emotional, physical, mental etc. benefits (i.e. ONLY UNITIVE), while at the same time knowing that the act cannot be life-giving due to biology and in the case of NFP couples intending precisely that

Actually, again as some women will tell you, you can never be sure that the act is not reproductive(which is really the idea you are trying to get across). I’ve had to use it on a few different occaisions and this last go around despite the info on the charts I’m expecting my 7th. Deo gratias!

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

So, you are saying that I made myself infertile during the infertile periods? That’s the only possible way I could “close life” during the infertile periods.

I don’t think you made yourself closed to life, I think you chose to have sex during times when your body is naturally closed to life by means of being infertile.

I think you chose the infertile times for precisely those reasons. But I am repeating myself. This is getting nowhere.

With reference to IUD, I was assuming a perfect NFP method, if people get pregnant now it’s because they use the method poorly or the method is imperfect. With advances in technology it could very well be perfect. Perfecting the NFP methods to 100% effectiveness would not change the morality of NFP.

So, I’ve asked you this before but are you married? Have you read the Theology of the Body? Do you have children?

Haven;t read ToB. As to children I’ve answered this before, two times in fact.

If you want to think that unaltered sex of a post-menopausal couple is procreative, that’s up to you. I don’t want to repeat my arguments anymore.

I think we have to agree to disagree.

But as a final point, a sex act that doesn’t end in actual conception is not reproductive, but procreative/open to life etc. are not possible when pregnancy is 100% impossible. It’s like being open to having a big bag of gold fall in front of you from the sky. Sure, you’re “open”, but you well know it’s not going to happen, and in the case of NFP you use the method precisely for this reason.

 

[Flopfoot]

svoboda:

It is moral for Catholics to have sex for the unitive purpose alone even when there is no infertility or menopause.

Here is why: NFP is moral.

Do you realise what you’re doing here. You’ve made a statement which goes against what the Church teaches. Then, as your reason, you’ve used a Church teaching.

Sorry if you’ve answered this already. My question to you would be - are you a Catholic or not? Do you agree with Church teaching or not? Why do you agree that NFP is moral just because the Church says it is, but then won’t agree with other Church teachings, such as that sex for the unitive purpose alone is not moral?

There is a way of reconciling the 2 teachings, that NFP is okay but that all sex is unitive and procreative. This is what my fellow Catholics have been trying to explain in this thread and others. Since I’m a Catholic I believe both those teachings and if you are a Catholic then you should too, and instead of trying to reconcile it your way, you should believe that the Church can reconcile all its teachings together. And if you’re not a Catholic then why are you trying to tell us Catholics what’s moral and what’s not?

 

[svoboda]

Flopfoot:

Do you realise what you’re doing here. You’ve made a statement which goes against what the Church teaches. Then, as your reason, you’ve used a Church teaching.

Yes, my intention was to show that the Church contradicts itself in this matter.

Sorry if you’ve answered this already. My question to you would be - are you a Catholic or not? Do you agree with Church teaching or not? Why do you agree that NFP is moral just because the Church says it is, but then won’t agree with other Church teachings, such as that sex for the unitive purpose alone is not moral?

I’m not Catholic, I agree with a lot of what the Church teaches, but I don’t agree with everything.

And if you’re not a Catholic then why are you trying to tell us Catholics what’s moral and what’s not?

Because even though we might not all be Catholics, we are all human beings, we all think and we all have moral consciences that I believe are our best window to discerning God’s will.

Why am I bothering arguing against the Church in this matter? Most of all because of the pain I believe this teaching causes to many people. NFP fails for some for various reasons, I’ve read a personal account of a couple who used NFP as best they could, went to teachers etc. but had something like 5 children within 8 years. They couldn’t handle it anymore so they started using artificial birth control.

There are women in Africa who have a 1 in 16 chance of dying due to childbirth/pergnancy, their husbands might not be willing to use NFP, women’s rights are not big there.

I also think there is a lot of demonization of the unitive component for the sake of the unitive component. I think it harms human happiness and married life.

 

[CuriousInIL]

bear06:

Unaltered sex is ALWAYS procreative and unitive.

bear06:

They don’t need to say this because every marital act that is not altered is always unitive and procreative.

OK. As far as I understand it, these two statements would be considered wrong, especially to the extent that they purport to say that the unitive aspect is present in every unaltered marital act. If you have support for them, I would be very interested in seeing such support.

 

[uncleauberon]

svoboda,


OK I Got it !

You are arguing that the Church teaching as stated in the Catechism and the Practice of NFP are at odds.

That sex is not always both uniative and procreative.

That in the case of Non-Fertile times - post-menopause - and other reasons that a couple may be infertile – that sex between them may be “uniative” but cannot be “procreative”.

That since the church approves of couples having sex during naturally occuring times of infertility that it must then approve of sex only for the “unitive”. Without the need for “procreative”.

Thus - the Church has contradicted itself.

You are submitting this idea…
The church teaches:
Sex must be for uniative and procreative.
Unless procreative is not possible
Then sex can be just for uniative.

The NFP folks submit this idea…
The church teaches:
Sex must be for uniative and procreative.
If fertility is not present sex can still be procreative since it is open to life in its natural present state. (Which might be zero)
Thus natural sex is always both uniative and procreative.

The point of contention seems to be:

The NFP promoters have expanded the definition of “procreative”.

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 ?

 

[setter]

uncleauberon:

svoboda,


OK I Got it !

You are arguing that the Church teaching as stated in the Catechism and the Practice of NFP are at odds.

That sex is not always both uniative and procreative.

That in the case of Non-Fertile times - post-menopause - and other reasons that a couple may be infertile – that sex between them may be “uniative” but cannot be “procreative”.

That since the church approves of couples having sex during naturally occuring times of infertility that it must then approve of sex only for the “unitive”. Without the need for “procreative”.

Thus - the Church has contradicted itself.

You are submitting this idea…
The church teaches:
Sex must be for uniative and procreative.
Unless procreative is not possible
Then sex can be just for uniative.

The NFP folks submit this idea…
The church teaches:
Sex must be for uniative and procreative.
If fertility is not present sex can still be procreative since it is open to life in its natural present state. (Which might be zero)
Thus natural sex is always both uniative and procreative.

The point of contention seems to be:

The NFP promoters have expanded the definition of “procreative”.

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 ?

Nice summary of the debate. It really does come down to whose “dictionary” that one is using to define terms and frame the moral issue at hand. Personally, I defer to the Church’s definition.

Originally Posted by svoboda
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.

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!