Sex for the unitive purpose alone is moral within Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter svoboda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And about why intentionally and actively render a sexual act sterile is evil. I also ask myself many times and I do not find the right answer. I guess the Church is right making rules about all that has to do with human life and its possible manipulation (abortion, artificial reproduction, cloning……).

But thinking like you do I should start also doubting about the Church doctrine on divorce, masturbation, homosexual acts, cloning, embryo manipulation and artificial reproduction.

Jose
 
40.png
svoboda:
I disagree with the Church on many issues, but my disagreements can be summarized in that I choose people over rules any day. To me the lives of human beings, their health, their happiness are more important than rules. Rules are good if they help human beings, if they harm human beings they should be done away with.

If the Church’s prohibition of birth control ends up costing your wife her life, or ends up harming the unitive aspect of your marriage due to constant abstinence then I denounce those rules.

Isn’t the law supposed to be made for the people, not the people for the law?
Click to expand...
The Church chooses each person over people in general.
The Church chooses the eternal over the temporal.

This is the point.

You can’t break natural law – if you try – it breaks you.

God created the natural Law. God created the Church so that he could reveal the natural law to the world.

The Church looks at the world. It looks at God’s revelation and informs the world how things are.
{i.e. This or that is evil or this or that is good.}

The Church puts people and their souls first. By letting them know how things really work in this world. It also gives disicplines and edits to help us conduct ourselves according to God’s Law.

The Church brings Christ into the world. It informs our conscience.
If you are Catholic - then you are saying that you agree that the Church fulfills this role.

If not - then you are not compelled to do things in a Catholic way.

The Church says, “Don’t jump off a building”
You can still choose to jump off a building anyway. But if you do the law of gravity will be in force. You will fall and break.

You can choose to use ABC. But, if you do you will fall and break.

The Church - after much research, deliberation and prayer - has come to the conclusion that NFP is in accordance with natural law. That it preserves both the uniative and procreative nature of sex, even when actual fertility is not present.

We are talking about body & souls here.
Matthew
Chapter 16 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? 27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Click to expand...
 
To me the lives of human beings, their health, their happiness are more important than rules. Rules are good if they help human beings, if they harm human beings they should be done away with.
Click to expand...
Who exactly are these “rules” hurting?
 
40.png
josea:
According to your point of view Church and God teachings about divorce, masturbation, homosexuality, abortion etc… would prevent people to be happy, psychologically healthy and therefore they “harm” human beings.

Not true. Abortion destroys a human life. Divorce can harm the other spouse and children. (But I don’t think divorce is always wrong, there are cases when it is necessary.)

If homosexuality is biological and something those people can do nothing about, then I don’t think it’s wrong. It’s who they are. It’s how God made them.

Masturbation maybe be a selfish desire for pleasure, but it is not evil. It doesn’t destroy anyone. It doesn’t hurt anyone. It is about as bad as eating icecream for the sake of pleasure alone, separated from food’s purpose to nourish.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
svoboda:
If homosexuality is biological and something those people can do nothing about, then I don’t think it’s wrong. It’s who they are. It’s how God made them.
Click to expand...
And the same is true about alcholism. It’s how God made them. And there is nothing evil about being an alcoholic. But engaging in drunkeness is.

There is nothing evil about being a homosexual, but engaging in homosexual acts is.
Masturbation maybe be a selfish desire for pleasure, but it is not evil. It doesn’t destroy anyone. It doesn’t hurt anyone. .
Click to expand...
Really, how about producing a disordered view of the sexual act, does that not hurt the person’s current or future spouse?
 
40.png
svoboda:
Not true. Abortion destroys a human life. Divorce can harm the other spouse and children. (But I don’t think divorce is always wrong, there are cases when it is necessary.)

If homosexuality is biological and something those people can do nothing about, then I don’t think it’s wrong. It’s who they are. It’s how God made them.

Masturbation maybe be a selfish desire for pleasure, but it is not evil. It doesn’t destroy anyone. It doesn’t hurt anyone. It is about as bad as eating icecream for the sake of pleasure alone, separated from food’s purpose to nourish.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t make up rules. The Church gives us guidelines on how to come closer to God so that someday we will be in heaven with Him. Sometimes drawing close to God is difficult! He calls us to sacrifice, to give up our entire lives for Him and to do His will. But the flip side is that He knows and wants what’s best for us, and He wants us to be with Him forever.

I know that you may not believe any of the above, but I know that it is true. As far as some of the issues you have difficulty go:

Homosexuality -
God does not call anyone to have sex outside of marriage. It is clear from the Bible that marriage is meant to be a life-long relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, homosexuals are never called to be married or to have sex. They are called to live chastely like the rest of us. That for them (as well as religious and those called to the single life) means abstinence.

Masturbation -
Masturbation is evil and does hurt those who do it. They isolate their sexual desire and misuse it. Our sexual impulses are meant to be used in marriage. They are meant to bond us to our spouse and to create children. When someone masturbates, they are bonding themselves with a fantasy rather than their spouse. This can cause them many problems in future relationships. Furthermore, it can become an addictive behavior. Several wives on this board have said that their husbands masterbate despite the fact that they could be having sex with their wives instead. That’s not healthy.

God bless.
 
40.png
Brendan:
And the same is true about alcholism. It’s how God made them. And there is nothing evil about being an alcoholic. But engaging in drunkeness is.

There is nothing evil about being a homosexual, but engaging in homosexual acts is.
Click to expand...
But alcoholism is not natural, people may be genetically predisposed to it (and additions in general), but they are not born alcoholics.

Homosexuality could be a real biological variation, many animals are also homosexuals.

I’ve seen documentaries about people who were incidentally homosexual. There were two lesbian women, one of whom was so masculine that she looked and behaved like a man!

Why is the homosexual act evil?
Really, how about producing a disordered view of the sexual act, does that not hurt the person’s current or future spouse?
Click to expand...
Well, IF it hurts the person’s current or future spouse then it is definitely immoral.
 
40.png
ElizabethAnne:
Why is fornication evil? Why are other sexual acts outside of marriage sins?
Click to expand...
I don’t see marriage the same way you do, to me marriage is a permanent commitment a man and a woman make to each other. I think it is ideal to have only one sexual partner in a lifetime and to stay faithful to your spouse.

But for me marriage is not a religious thing, and I don’t see why two persons of the same sex couldn’t make the same commitment especially if they are wired differently and are not attracted to the opposite sex.
 
40.png
svoboda:
Sex for the unitive purpose alone among fertile couples is perfectly moral.
Click to expand...
If human acts do not render sex instrinsically non-procreative, then it is not illicit. It is the will, not the want, which counts.
 
Intention connotes an operation of the will. “Intention… (Lat. intendere, to stretch toward, to aim at) is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the means.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Intention)

I “want” many things which I do not “will” (eg, skip work and fly to the bahamas is what I want, but I do not will it). I “will” many things which I do not “want” (eg. get up and go to work).

One using NFP may not “want” children, but they do not “intend” or “will” contrary to conception because their human acts do not render conjugal acts non-procreative. NFP is not an act of will contrary to the procreative purpose of conjugal acts. It is the will, not the want which counts.

According to Catholic teaching…
***“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.” ***(Casti Connubii, 54)
Click to expand...
There are three human acts within NFP: planning, abstinence, sex. When one plans, one is not exercising the conjugal act while deliberately (willfully) frustrating its natural purpose. When one abstains, one is not exercising the conjugal act while deliberately (willfully) frustrating its natural purpose. When one has sex (naturally), then one is not exercising the conjugal act while deliberately (willfully) frustrating its natural purpose.

If you thesis is that Catholics can “want” to have sex for unative purposes alone, then I agree. If not, and your thesis is that Catholic may “intend” by the operation of their will to have sex for unative purposes only, then I disagree.

Catholic teaching does NOT affirm that the conjugal act ever has a unative purpose alone. We don’t get to decide the natural purpose of our conjugal acts by our “wants.” God decided the natural purpose by His design. Whether something is moral or immoral depends upon whether we willfully frustrate God’s purpose for the conjugal act.
 
40.png
svoboda:
I don’t see marriage the same way you do, …

But for me marriage is not a religious thing, and I don’t see why two persons of the same sex couldn’t make the same commitment especially if they are wired differently and are not attracted to the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
svoboda,

You started this thread by stating the the Catholic Church is in contradiction between its teaching and its approval of NFP.

You are claiming that the furniture clashes with the walls. When infact you actually think the whole house should be torn down.

You are judging a part of the structure without understanding the foundation of the whole.

Your question shed light on what seemed to be a contradiction.
👍
In fact, I thought you had a good point to start with. :clapping:

:confused: Of course, you will misunderstand the marital embrace if you misunderstand what it is to be marital, and what it is to be embraced.

Your questions about what the Church means by the** embrace** being “uniative & procreative” have been answered.

Now you show a lack of understanding for what the Church means by marital .:o

It sounds like the start a a new thread to me.

God Bless You
 
40.png
uncleauberon:
svoboda,

You started this thread by stating the the Catholic Church is in contradiction between its teaching and its approval of NFP.

You are claiming that the furniture clashes with the walls. When infact you actually think the whole house should be torn down.

You are judging a part of the structure without understanding the foundation of the whole.

Your question shed light on what seemed to be a contradiction.
👍
In fact, I thought you had a good point to start with. :clapping:

:confused: Of course, you will misunderstand the marital embrace if you misunderstand what it is to be marital, and what it is to be embraced.

Your questions about what the Church means by the** embrace** being “uniative & procreative” have been answered.

Now you show a lack of understanding for what the Church means by marital .:o

It sounds like the start a a new thread to me.

God Bless You
Click to expand...
Well, I did say I am not Catholic, I used to be though and I was arguing from within Catholcism, using the Catholic understanding of marriage. There are Catholics who hold that view.

I don’t see how my views on homosexuality would change the substance of the argument about NFP and birth control.

Judge the argument on its merit, not on the person who made it. 🙂
 
40.png
svoboda:
Well, I did say I am not Catholic. There are Catholics who hold that view though.

Judge the argument on its merit, not on the person who made it.
Click to expand...
svoboda,

Yes, you did say you were not Catholic.

You set up an apparent contradiction – the contradiction was addressed.

I did judge the argument on it’s original merit. I liked the argument at first. You nearly had me convinced.

Then eventually when the issue was addressed you just disagreed with the definition of “procreative” that the Church uses.

Now you have revealed that you disagree with what the church means by “uniative”

By which, we should realize that your original postulation about one aspect of the marital embrace,
Sex for the unitive purpose alone among fertile couples is perfectly moral.
Click to expand...
is really a misunderstanding about the nature of the marital embrace as a whole; uniative and procreative

I apologize that you felt I was attacking you.

I was attacking your original argument because it seemed that you understood one side of issue and misunderstood the other side.

I feel mislead now that you have admitted that you don’t even believe in the religious and sacramental nature of marriage.

This was the “assumed” foundation on which all other discussion was based.

It should have been covered earlier. I’m sorry that it wasn’t.

todd
 
40.png
uncleauberon:
I feel mislead now that you have admitted that you don’t even believe in the religious and sacramental nature of marriage.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel mislead, that was not my intention. I am going to go ahead and put my beliefs in my profile so that others do not feel mislead.

I should say that I did do my best to use the term unitive in the Catholic sense. The definition of unitive I was using was one that strengthens love between spouses, that builds up intimacy, physical closeness, that expresses the intense emotions in the marriage. etc. This is how I understood unitive as a Catholic.

You should know that if procreative means not actively preventing the sperm from meeting the egg, then I agree that NFP, sex during pregnancy, sex after menopause etc. are all procreative.

I thought procreative meant that there was a life-giving component to the sex act by means of there being a possibility that a new life would be created.

This is why for ecample I would say that a pregnant couple is having sex for the unitive purpose alone, because they are doing it for love alone, there is no possibility of procreation. But since they are not actively preventing the sperm from reaching the egg, according to the other definition there is still a procreative component to the act.
 
… Also unitive would reaffirm the whole “you are mine and I am yours” business.

For me the only argument against artificial contraception is that it interferes with the “complete gift of self” business by deliberately holding back fertility.

For example I think that when pregnant couples have sex they are doing for the unitive purpose alone, complete gift of self and all. I think that NFP couples are doing for the unitive purpose alone. But not procreative AS I SEE IT, others have suggested a different definition.

Anyway, it’s up to you to decide.

Maybe contraceptive couples are not unitive because they hold something back.

But this is not a pro-contraception argument
 
Since you’re so fond of Fr. Zimmerman, here’s a piece and quote from him on the subject.
catholicmind.com/books/nfp/morality_of_birth_control_methods.htm
The practice of contraception, however, is different. On his own initiative, outside of and in opposition to the rhythmic cycle of fertility, man dissociates the two meanings, and willfully eliminates the procreative meaning. By thus eliminating the procreative meaning through a positive intervention, man also impairs the totality of the mutual self-giving, and offends against the unitotality of the persons who supposedly give themselves to each other in an act of intercourse. Intercourse is not a true and effective conjugal union in such a case, despite the psychological impression of the two, despite sincere subjective intentions. By interfering with the procreative meaning of the act, the couple also compromise the unitive meaning by unavoidable necessity. The two meanings are interdependent; one cannot exist essentially when the other is suppressed.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
svoboda:
And that is a valid argument against congtraception.

But my point is about whether sex for the unitive purpose alone is allowed in Catholicism, and I maintain that it is. Example: sex of pregnant couples.
Click to expand...
Did you read the last line of the quote? These aspects are interdependent no matter how you are doing the act. You can’t have one without the other. Once again, you have to use the Church’s definitions. In the case of pregnant couples, neither the procreative or the unitive is supressed.
 
40.png
bear06:
Did you read the last line of the quote? These aspects are interdependent no matter how you are doing the act. You can’t have one without the other. Once again, you have to use the Church’s definitions. In the case of pregnant couples, neither the procreative or the unitive is supressed.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe so, maybe if you deliberately suppress the unitive or the procreative the other is suppressed.

My position is that pregnant couples don’t have a procreative aspect to suppress, but you disagree.

At least we can all agree that it’s impossible that a new life will result from that sexual act, and that all that sexual act will do is reaffirm the husband and wife’s love for one another. And that they’re doing it for the love/physical pleasure etc. knowing perfectly well that a new baby is impossible as they’re already prgnant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top