sex?

[KarenNC]

The problem is definitions. If you want to refute what the Catholic Church teaches you must understand that teaching and not replace it with your own teaching.

Fair enough. The question was worded “Would you argue a husband and wife who have sex during infertile periods on the menstrual cycle are being not open to life?” not “would you argue that the Catholic Church teaches that …” I presented my argument and went on to ask clarifying questions.

It may be safe to say that I reject the Catholic Church’s teaching in this matter as applicable to anyone but those who have chosen to affiliate themselves with the Catholic Church, but then that will hardly surprise anyone .

Out of curiosity, is there a prohibition within the Catholic Church against marrying someone who has been sterilized by choice? I don’t think I have seen that variable discussed yet.

 

[Other_Eric]

There are many same sex couples . . .

It seems to me that the underlying assumption in your argument is one of nihilism. In order for what you say to be true, it seems you would need to maintain that gender itself is a social construct and that, at the end of the day, there really is no discernable difference between a man and a woman. That this view tends to be contradicted by psychology, genetics, biology and every society in recorded history is apparently of little concern to you.

What seems to be important to you is a superficial assessment of the things that same-sex couples do as compared to the things opposite-sex couples do. Both seem to be capable of monogamy, economic sacrifice and raising children. You therefore intuit that both types of relationships have equivalent sanctity because they can both objectively do the same things.

I do not believe that in monogamy, economic sacrifice or raising children that same-sex couples can replicate or even approach the tangible and intangible benefits that an opposite-sex couple provides. Nevertheless, for the sake of this present argument, I will grant to you each of these and we will focus on the complimentary aspect of the sexual act, which you are having trouble with.

For a Catholic, there is no duality between the body and the soul. The body is the physical manifestation of the soul and for one to be without the other, as in death when the soul is separated from the body, is to be in an unnatural state. Therefore, to be either a man or a woman has a meaning that goes beyond the physical reality of one’s body and points directly to one’s immortal soul.

The bodies of men and women are designed to physically express the ineffable. The sexual act is meant to be the physical manifestation of the love that a married couple share. This love is different from the love that one might have for one’s best friend or that a boy might have for his dog. Instead, it is meant to be the life-giving union of two different individuals that images Christ’s union with the Church. It is complimentary because the sexual organs become one new organ capable of generating new life when united. In this act, an opposite-sex couple sacrifice their own will to the will of God the Father and make the ultimate risk of becoming responsible for another human being.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

(. . . continued from above)

In contrast, the same-sex couple cannot hope to replicate this complimentary union. For them, there is no equivalent sacrifice tied to the sexual act. By its very nature, the act is closed to the creation of new life. Its only end is the physical sensation that the act provides. A same-sex couple therefore ends up using the body of another for their own selfish and hedonistic ends and refuses the self-sacrifice that the sexual act, by its very nature, demands.

Now, the usual objections to this line of thought are the examples you provide: priests, monks, nuns, sterile couples and those practicing Natural Family Planning (NFP) in a way that precludes conception. Nevertheless, each of these contains within it the potential for fruitful self-sacrifice in a way that the same-sex couple cannot match.

For priests and other religious who take a vow of celibacy, their decision to deny themselves the pleasures not only of sex but of family is in itself a sacrifice that the copulating same-sex couple simply isn’t living up to. The sacrifice of the celibate is made in anticipation of the Resurrection when none are given in marriage. As discussed before, the sexual act in marriage is meant as a sign of Christ’s union with the Church. The celibate choose to save themselves for that reality.

The example of the sterile couple I have already discussed in a previous post, but the example of the couple using NFP in the way that you describe is an interesting one that is not much discussed. I will attempt it here.

The Church permits married couples to refrain from reproduction for a just cause, of which medical, socioeconomic, or other reasons might apply. It is conceivable that they might, hypothetically, continue this practice throughout the course of the entire marriage. Nevertheless, they are not actively rendering the sexual act sterile by means of contraception. This means that even in the face of dire medical or socioeconomic consequences, they are willing to accept the creation of new life that arises from the act.

It is, however, possible that even a married, opposite-sex couple can fall into many of the deceptions our society has created around sex. NFP can be used to sinful effect when just cause to avoid pregnancy does not exist. To attempt marriage intending not to have children is to withhold an essential element from the union, rendering it invalid. If either of these situations occur with the consent of one of the individual’s wills, then they would be sinful.

In the end, a same-sex relationship is the very vainglorious lifestyle I initially said it was. The Christian imagery of the sexual act is destroyed. No longer does the individual seek one that is different and draw her towards himself in a life-giving union meant to image Christ’s relationship with His Church. Instead, the individual actively seeks one who is exactly like himself so that he may use the other’s body for his own self-indulgent ends, free from consequence. To imagine that this could in any way equate to the love of a husband and wife is to betray a self-centered and hedonistically utilitarian view of sexuality.

 

[Montalban]

One cannot reasonably compare the example of a sterile opposite-sex couple to a same-sex couple. In the case of the opposite-sex couple, their sexual act would be fruitful but for the medical condition, which is out of their control. Their bodies aren’t functioning the way that they should. One could imagine that if there was a way to change this, that they would embrace it.

So a priest who could have sex but chooses a life where he doesn’t procreate is wrong.

The case of a same-sex couple is completely different. Sexual activity between two members of the same sex can never be fruitful.

Sex between two sterile partners can never be fruitful.

There is no medical condition that thwarts the creation of new life, just the choice of a sexual partner with whom such fruitfulness is impossible by design. That the sterility of this relationship is entirely within the control of the two participants, their coupling is nothing more than an attempt to unmoor the sexual act from its procreative end in the same way that a glutton attempts to separate consumption from nourishment.

Then someone who chooses to be celibate is sinful.

The bottom line is that sex is not something for mere recreation. It has a very specific purpose in both procreation and the union of the couple. Neither part of this dual purpose can stand alone by the active choice of the couple. Therein lies mortal sin

You can’t argue that at the same time as arguing that the rule by which you judge something to be wrong is based on a sexual act! (i.e of the ability to procreate).

 

[Montalban]

fix:

They may be infertile, through no fault of their own, but that does not make their acts less open to procreation. Would you argue a husband and wife who have sex during infertile periods on the menstrual cycle are being not open to life?

So if a fertile couple chose to not have children, they’d be sinful!

fix:

The act being procreative does not simply mean conception will happen. It is in the very nature of the act.

Sorry, but before you were differentiating between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ procreation.

fix:

They may argue that but it would be illogical. Two men or two women together can never be procreative. They are not designed to be. It contradicts the natural moral law and laws of biology. We are all body and soul.

And an infertile couple will never be procreative.

fix:

The Church transmits what has been revealed to us. Right and wrong are determined by the Creator.

Ah, the end of the argument. The church has spoken, that’s it. No need to go on about ‘natural law’ arguments then.

Montalban:

For the record, I don’t think the practice of homosexual sex is allowable by God. What I’m objecting to is the (to me) strange notion of ‘Natural Law’ being applied here; as Catholics do with regards other areas, such as abortion (which I’m also against)

fix:

Then I would ask where you think the human race gets the understanding that somethings are right and some are wrong? That is another thread.

I believe we get the answer of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from God.

As noted I disagree with homosexuality. However the ‘reason’ given by you is flawed; natural law. It is the application in a highly sinuous manner what is ‘right’ by what is ‘natural’.

Same as abortion; which I’ll deal with only, to point to the demerits of the natural-law argument. Abortion is seen as wrong (which I agree with). It’s seen wrong by Catholics due to the application of ‘natural law’ principles. That is, if it weren’t for a human act, that baby would naturally develop and grow, and be born. Therefore, by intervening in what is natural, and upsetting that, one is committing a sin. By implication - which is never dealt with properly by Catholics - is by the same ‘measure’ one could rule that ANY medical intervention is wrong. A person who gets sick should then naturally be allowed to either get better or die as per nature.

Now we have the same issue over homosexuality. An attempt to apply rules that aren’t made universal.

Rule: A non-procreative couple is wrong. Homosexuals can’t procreate. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

Infertile couples can’t procreate either. Application of the rule waivered due to matter of ‘choice’. Their ability or not to procreate is beyond their choice.

A couple that choose not to have children must therefore be wrong. No, wait, we’ll bring in another exemption for them.

A priest chooses to be celibate, no wait, will bring in another exemption. In effect the application of the rule goes to applying it to what you already have determined to be wrong. That is why it is flawed.

 

[Other_Eric]

So a priest who could have sex but chooses a life where he doesn’t procreate is wrong.

Sex between two sterile partners can never be fruitful.

Then someone who chooses to be celibate is sinful.

You can’t argue that at the same time as arguing that the rule by which you judge something to be wrong is based on a sexual act! (i.e of the ability to procreate).

There is no moral requirement to engage in sexual activity. I’ve already pointed out in this post the fruitful nature of the decision to remain celibate. Even if you deny this, there is simply no comparison between a man who gives up that which is pleasurable to a man who attempts to grasp what is pleasurable through illicit means.

Sex between two sterile partners may never be procreative, it is true, but this is by reason of their handicap, disorder or other medical condition that they do not choose. The healthy same-sex couple is sterile by the nature of what their bodies are designed to do.

Therefore, the bottom line remains that the sexual act is not intended for mere recreation. The rule by which to judge the morality of the sexual act is whether, in the nature of the act itself without deliberate frustration, it is open to the possibility of life and the true union of its participants.

 

[KarenNC]

It seems to me that the underlying assumption in your argument is one of nihilism.

Hardly, assuming you are using the following as a description of nihilism–“Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.”
iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

I fail to see how questioning a claim that economic self sacrifice, the ability to raise children, or ability to commit to a monogamous relationship with another person are exclusively dependent on the conjunction of a male and a female sexual organ falls under the definition of nihilism.

**In order for what you say to be true, it seems you would need to maintain that gender itself is a social construct **

The ability to bear a child or to impregnate are biological imperatives. Gender roles and gender identities are a much grayer area. We are still learning how much of a nature vs. nurture issue these actually are, but I have not seen any convincing evidence that social expectations do not play at least some role in the area of gender.

**and that, at the end of the day, there really is no discernable difference between a man and a woman. **

I said

There are many same sex couples who raise children, either their own biological children (from a previous heterosexual relationship or through artificial insemination) or by adoption. Some of these adopt children that are considered less desirable for adoption by the majority of heterosexual couples due to mixed race, age, disability, etc.

I have personally seen great levels of self-sacrifice and commitment between members of same-sex couples, just as I have in opposite-sex couples. I have also seen selfishness and self-centeredness in both. I can’t see that the same sex couple who has been committed monogamously to each other for 30 years as being in any less sacred a relationship than that of a heterosexual couple.

Where in this did I say there was no discernable difference between a man and a woman?

Now, if you want to claim that I don’t agree with the Catholic Church that the sanctity of committed relationship is solely dependent on gender, then we have no argument. That should come as no surprise as I am not, have never been and am unlikely to become Catholic.

That this view tends to be contradicted by psychology, genetics, biology and every society in recorded history is apparently of little concern to you.

Well, it might be an issue if I had espoused such a view, but I did not.

**What seems to be important to you is a superficial assessment of the things that same-sex couples do as compared to the things opposite-sex couples do. Both seem to be capable of monogamy, economic sacrifice and raising children. **

You are the one who chose the elements of childrearing, sacrifice and monogamy, not me. Same-sex couples are doing these things.

** You therefore intuit that both types of relationships have equivalent sanctity because they can both objectively do the same things.**

I believe that both types of relationships have the potential for equivalent sanctity by any measure that I consider valid. I also believe that both types unfortunately often fall short of that potential.

(cont.)

 

[KarenNC]

I do not believe that in monogamy, economic sacrifice or raising children that same-sex couples can replicate or even approach the tangible and intangible benefits that an opposite-sex couple provides.

Okay, fair enough. We disagree.

** Nevertheless, for the sake of this present argument, I will grant to you each of these and we will focus on the complimentary aspect of the sexual act, which you are having trouble with.**

I’m not “having trouble with” the complementary aspect of the sexual act between a male and a female. I’m pretty clear on that one, thanks. I also understand that in Catholicism the only true value of that sexual act is for procreation. I don’t agree.

I simply do not believe that a committed monogamous same sex relationship is any less in value than a committed monogamous opposite-sex relationship nor that it has less value as a stabilizing force in our society.

It is complimentary because the sexual organs become one new organ capable of generating new life when united. In this act, an opposite-sex couple sacrifice their own will to the will of God the Father and make the ultimate risk of becoming responsible for another human being. In contrast, the same-sex couple cannot hope to replicate this complimentary union. For them, there is no equivalent sacrifice tied to the sexual act.

I fully agree that a same sex couple does not have the same risk of causing a pregnancy that the sexual act of a fertile heterosexual couple does. However, your original argument about sacrifice did not specify that it was limited to the economic self-sacrifice of having to provide for a child.

Spiritually, it is the bond of two souls in a lifelong commitment of complimentary service and self-sacrifice.

There are many forms of self-sacrifice and service to the other involved in a committed relationship that have nothing to do with procreation.

However, there are numerous same sex couples who willingly and deliberately do choose to take on the responsibility and self-sacrifice involved in raising a child, through adoption, in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination. This includes deliberately choosing to do so for a child that will require a greater than usual amount of sacrifice and a longer than usual term of full responsibility (sometimes lifelong), such as a child with a serious disability. These couples are not simply “taking a risk,” they are sometimes going to great lengths to ensure that they are responsible for said child.

For priests and other religious who take a vow of celibacy, their decision to deny themselves the pleasures not only of sex but of family is in itself a sacrifice that the copulating same-sex couple simply isn’t living up to. The sacrifice of the celibate is made in anticipation of the Resurrection when none are given in marriage. As discussed before, the sexual act in marriage is meant as a sign of Christ’s union with the Church. The celibate choose to save themselves for that reality.

So the ultimate ideal according to the Catholic Church is not really procreation but celibacy?

In the end, a same-sex relationship is the very vainglorious lifestyle I initially said it was. The Christian imagery of the sexual act is destroyed. No longer does the individual seek one that is different and draw her towards himself in a life-giving union meant to image Christ’s relationship with His Church. Instead, the individual actively seeks one who is exactly like himself so that he may use the other’s body for his own self-indulgent ends, free from consequence. To imagine that this could in any way equate to the love of a husband and wife is to betray a self-centered and hedonistically utilitarian view of sexuality.

Your argument seems to stem from the presumption that there is no inherent value in the sexual act apart from procreation, that any other benefit from it is purely hedonistic and self-indulgent and we would actually be better off without those unneeded side effects.

I disagree with this presumption. I certainly value the fact that sexual acts can lead to procreation–I have a child whom I love very dearly. I am also glad that the human race continues to exist.

I do believe, however, that sexual activity within a committed monogamous relationship has a value totally separate from the possibility of procreation–that of strengthening the connection and bonds of commitment. To look at the sexual act as purely for procreation (which is also a utilitarian view) and to dismiss as hedonistic and unimportant the mutual pleasure that it brings to a couple denies an aspect of sexual union that I consider sacred, the gift of Aphrodite in the service of Hera.

 

[KarenNC]

Therefore, the bottom line remains that the sexual act is not intended for mere recreation.

I can absolutely agree with this statement.

** The rule by which to judge the morality of the sexual act is whether, in the nature of the act itself without deliberate frustration, it is open to the possibility of life and the true union of its participants**

However, I disagree on the standard used to judge the morality or value of the act.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hardly, assuming you are using the following as a description of nihilism . . .

I did not and do not ascribe to you personally a nihilistic worldview. I merely use the word to characterize your argument and the type of reasoning that seems to be behind it. Nor do I think this is some sort of grand philosophy or yours, but I use the word in a much more mundane sense:

1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths (1)

I use the word to illustrate what I take to be the core assumption of your argument, that men and women are interchangeable in terms of sexual relationship and the rearing of children. This I reject. As I have illustrated above, there is a difference that goes beyond mere sexual organs, as gender incorporates the soul. I call the rejection of this truth nihilistic because its logical conclusion is the denial of sexual difference beyond an accident of biology.

This is not to say that there do not exist some components of gender norms that are social constructs in their entirety. The way people wear their hair and perhaps even some of the gender roles people follow are surely a manifestation of social imprinting. Nevertheless, there are quite a few norms that can be observed throughout time and across cultural barriers that tend to remain the same. In this we can see that gender most definitely incorporates more than just the sexual organs but also the psychology and, as my faith teaches, the soul.

Once we admit that there is a certain intrinsic difference between the sexes beyond the accident of biology, we can begin to grasp why it is that a man cannot simply exchange another man for a woman for his sexual partner. The two are not equivalent as the attempted exchange implies.

Now, you are correct that I chose childrearing, economic sacrifice and monogamy as objective indicators by which we might choose to compare a same-sex relationship with an opposite-sex relationship. In truth, it does not matter what those objective measures are. Substitute your own preferred “valid” measures, I will not debate them here. I intend to keep this conversation of ours squarely within the realm philosophy, the purpose of the sexual act and why, when viewed thusly, same-sex relations and opposite-sex relations are far from equivalent.

It is encouraging, at least, that you comprehend the complementary nature of the sexual act when performed by two individuals of the opposite sex sufficient that I see no need to attach any schematic diagram to this post. What you do not seem to understand is that the sanctity of the sexual act does not rest solely in its procreative function but in its unitive function as well. For a woman to artificially inseminate herself is as much a sin as it would be to render the sexual act sterile. Thus, the true teaching of the Church is that the purpose of sexuality is dual and neither the unitive aspect nor the possibility of procreation can be deliberately thwarted.

It is the risk of procreation where the act of sacrifice gains its full meaning. Not limited to mere economic sacrifice, the arrival of a child demands years of time and emotional investment for both individuals in a marriage. This is an entirely different sacrifice from the supposed sacrifice of a same-sex couple who attempt to artificially graft a child onto their otherwise sterile relationship. The opposite-sex couple’s sacrifice comes as a direct result of the sexual act, the same-sex couple’s sacrifice is borne out of a luxurious convenience entirely unrelated to their sexual acts.

If, as we agree, sex is not meant for mere recreation, then we are left only with the unitive and procreative aspects. To extol the unitive aspect in the form of emotional commitment and mutual pleasure at the expense of the procreative function is to dismiss one of the central aspects of the sexual act. No amount of emotional security or taste for pleasure can justify the misuse of sexuality, just as no amount of longing can justify the twin misuse of sexuality involved in artificial contraception.

(1)“Nihilism.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. 2006-2007. Available at: m-w.com/dictionary/nihilism

 

[Montalban]

There is no moral requirement to engage in sexual activity. I’ve already pointed out in this post the fruitful nature of the decision to remain celibate. Even if you deny this, there is simply no comparison between a man who gives up that which is pleasurable to a man who attempts to grasp what is pleasurable through illicit means.

There is, if you belief in natural law. It is ‘natural’ for humans to procreate.

Sex between two sterile partners may never be procreative, it is true, but this is by reason of their handicap, disorder or other medical condition that they do not choose. The healthy same-sex couple is sterile by the nature of what their bodies are designed to do.

And as a celibate’s body is ‘designed’ to procreate then they should. I’m sorry that your argument’s just going around in circles. It’s so arbitrary; the application of ‘natural law’ to certain circumstances.

 

[Other_Eric]

There is, if you belief in natural law. It is ‘natural’ for humans to procreate.

And as a celibate’s body is ‘designed’ to procreate then they should. I’m sorry that your argument’s just going around in circles. It’s so arbitrary; the application of ‘natural law’ to certain circumstances.

It seems that you are stuck on the idea that Natural Law dictates that everyone must procreate by virtue of having sexual organs. Natural Law merely states what the proper use of sexuality is. It is then up to the individual to either make use of the sexuality within this context or choose not to. The thing he must never do is misuse his sexuality.

Think of it as a toll plaza on a bridge. The law says that if you wish to drive over the bridge, you must pay the toll. The other alternative is to avoid the toll by going the long way around. Going the long way around does not violate the law in the same way that blowing through the toll plaza without paying the toll would. Certainly the effect is similar in that either way you end up at the same place, but we by no means call these methods equivalent. The ends do not justify whatever means we might conceive.

Like the bridge in my analogy, the use of sexuality comes with certain conditions. We may either accept those conditions (pay the toll) or choose not to use the sexual faculty (go the long way around) but we can never misuse the sexuality (blow through the toll) without violating the law. There are no circles here other than the ones you’ve set yourself spinning in.

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

It seems that you are stuck on the idea that Natural Law dictates that everyone must procreate by virtue of having sexual organs.

I’m not stuck on it at all. Natural law is about what is ‘natural’ is ‘good’. The being ‘stuck’ is your own church who argues that homosexuals are wrong, because it’s not natural, because they can’t ever procreate.

But then this universal measure for ‘good’ and ‘evil’ has a number of exceptions, as noted, even by you. The application of these exceptions is part of the problem. The church is applying as an absolute, a law that they grant loop-holes.

You offer no more argument than it ‘is’ because it is because it is.

Natural Law merely states what the proper use of sexuality is.

Which is to procreate…

It is then up to the individual to either make use of the sexuality within this context or choose not to. The thing he must never do is misuse his sexuality.

And the misuse of this is based on whether he/she procreates (that is, uses sex, naturally).

“The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.”
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

In other words, it’s un-natural, because it is, because it is, because it is. Sound familiar?

 

[KarenNC]

I use the word to illustrate what I take to be the core assumption of your argument, that men and women are interchangeable in terms of sexual relationship and the rearing of children. … I call the rejection of this truth nihilistic because its logical conclusion is the denial of sexual difference beyond an accident of biology.

You need to re-examine your assumption. There is a difference between “interchangable” and “equally capable.” I certainly do not deny that there will likely be differences, just that these differences do not render them incapable, as you seem to be arguing.

** In this we can see that gender most definitely incorporates more than just the sexual organs but also the psychology and, as my faith teaches, the soul.**

I don’t recall denying that your faith teaches that. Mine does not follow the same arguments, so it is hardly surprising that I come to different conclusions.

Once we admit that there is a certain intrinsic difference between the sexes beyond the accident of biology, we can begin to grasp why it is that a man cannot simply exchange another man for a woman for his sexual partner. The two are not equivalent as the attempted exchange implies.

It would appear that your core argument is that homosexuality is purely a matter of choice and entirely a social construct. That there is nothing more involved than a simple choice of same sex vs. opposite sex that can be made as easily and changed as easily as one changes brand of toothpaste.

Biological science is casting much doubt upon that argument
newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html
cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/science-pg.html

** I intend to keep this conversation of ours squarely within the realm philosophy, the purpose of the sexual act and why, when viewed thusly, same-sex relations and opposite-sex relations are far from equivalent. It is encouraging, at least, that you comprehend the complementary nature of the sexual act when performed by two individuals of the opposite sex sufficient that I see no need to attach any schematic diagram to this post. **

You keep coming back to the argument that because the sexual acts are not always identical then one is automatically entirely without value.

We have agreed that the mechanics differ. We have disagreed that those mechanics are the sole determinant of value in our relative belief systems.

**What you do not seem to understand is that the sanctity of the sexual act does not rest solely in its procreative function but in its unitive function as well. **

Actually, I agree with you on this point.

For a woman to artificially inseminate herself is as much a sin as it would be to render the sexual act sterile. Thus, the true teaching of the Church is that the purpose of sexuality is dual and neither the unitive aspect nor the possibility of procreation can be deliberately thwarted.

And I have said that I understand and reject your church’s teaching on that. May we move on now?

** Not limited to mere economic sacrifice, the arrival of a child demands years of time and emotional investment for both individuals in a marriage. This is an entirely different sacrifice from the supposed sacrifice of a same-sex couple who attempt to artificially graft a child onto their otherwise sterile relationship. The opposite-sex couple’s sacrifice comes as a direct result of the sexual act, the same-sex couple’s sacrifice is borne out of a luxurious convenience entirely unrelated to their sexual acts.**

So the sacrifice made by a heterosexual couple who adopts a child is totally meaningless because that child was not the result of their sexual act? The sacrifice of the widowed grandmother or unmarried aunt or uncle who take on the rearing of an orphaned child has no meaning and does not entail the same sacrifices that the heterosexual couple who conceives does(other than the physical act of pregnancy and birth, which I agree are sacrificial)? The single woman who adopts a child who is of mixed race or with a serious disability? They are also “artificially grafting a child onto their otherwise sterile relationship.”

If, as we agree, sex is not meant for mere recreation, then we are left only with the unitive and procreative aspects. To extol the unitive aspect in the form of emotional commitment and mutual pleasure at the expense of the procreative function is to dismiss one of the central aspects of the sexual act. No amount of emotional security or taste for pleasure can justify the misuse of sexuality, just as no amount of longing can justify the twin misuse of sexuality involved in artificial contraception.

Again, we disagree on what constitutes “misuse of sexuality.” In my religion, as in many others, demanding celibacy in the service of religion is also seen as a misuse of sexuality. I believe the sexual act between a man and a woman is sacred, I do not believe it is inherently more sacred than many other things.

 

[KarenNC]

“The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.”
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Hmmm. I wonder if the Church would change its position if science can ever conclusively prove that homosexuality is genetic or biological in nature vs a social construct. At that point, it would seem to me that natural law would cover it under “the natural sex partner for a homosexual man is another homosexual man and for a homosexual woman another homosexual woman because of their biological makeup.” Interesting idea to ponder.

 

[Other_Eric]

The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

I’m not stuck on it at all. Natural law is about what is ‘natural’ is ‘good’. The being ‘stuck’ is your own church who argues that homosexuals are wrong, because it’s not natural, because they can’t ever procreate.

But then this universal measure for ‘good’ and ‘evil’ has a number of exceptions, as noted, even by you. The application of these exceptions is part of the problem. The church is applying as an absolute, a law that they grant loop-holes.

You offer no more argument than it ‘is’ because it is because it is.

Which is to procreate…

And the misuse of this is based on whether he/she procreates (that is, uses sex, naturally).

“The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.”
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

In other words, it’s un-natural, because it is, because it is, because it is. Sound familiar?

To insist that Natural Law dictates that the sole end of sexual behavior is procreation is simply not the case. You seem to think that I have offered no argument to rebut these glaring loopholes of yours but have yet to respond even once to my repeated point that it is the deliberate choice of sexual partner who, by their very nature, is incapable of procreation that forms the illicit character of the homosexual act. I’ve also stated repeatedly that, and you have yet to respond to, the assertion that the infertility of a sterile, opposite-sex couple is not a deliberate act of the will as it is in the case of a same-sex couple.

It is interesting to note that you have completely ignored my analogy, and substituted someone else’s argument for my own. Perhaps this is because you have no response for me and would prefer to respond arguments others have made as a proxy for my own. I do not much care what is in the libraries at Catholic.com’s website. I am fully capable of making my own arguments and it is those that I wish you to respond to, not the arguments you imagine me to have made.

 

[KarenNC]

]It is interesting to note that you have completely ignored my analogy, and substituted someone else’s argument for my own. Perhaps this is because you have no response for me and would prefer to respond arguments others have made as a proxy for my own. I do not much care what is in the libraries at Catholic.com’s website. I am fully capable of making my own arguments and it is those that I wish you to respond to, not the arguments you imagine me to have made.

So are you saying here that your arguments are based on your own interpretation and not necessarily that of the Catholic Church or that the information provided in the library of this forum does not represent the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church?

 

[fix]

The problem is definitions. If you want to refute what the Catholic Church teaches you must understand that teaching and not replace it with your own teaching.

Fair enough. The question was worded “Would you argue a husband and wife who have sex during infertile periods on the menstrual cycle are being not open to life?” not “would you argue that the Catholic Church teaches that …” I presented my argument and went on to ask clarifying questions.

It may be safe to say that I reject the Catholic Church’s teaching in this matter as applicable to anyone but those who have chosen to affiliate themselves with the Catholic Church, but then that will hardly surprise anyone .

But, the teaching is true regardless of acceptance. It does apply to all mankind. The proof, like all philosophical proofs, may be very accurate yet rejected for other reasons by folks.

Out of curiosity, is there a prohibition within the Catholic Church against marrying someone who has been sterilized by choice? I don’t think I have seen that variable discussed yet.

If they have repented they are free to marry. As an aside if they cannot have intercourse, like total impotence, they would not be able to marry.

 

[fix]

So if a fertile couple chose to not have children, they’d be sinful!

Depending on the circumstance it may be a sin. God ordained the cycle to have periods of fertility mixed with infertility for a reason.

Sorry, but before you were differentiating between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ procreation.

Yes, so? The nature of the unaltered act is procreative even if conception does not happen. You seem to want to equate the use of the word procreative with conception likely happening exclusively?

And an infertile couple will never be procreative.

They may never conceive, but their marital embrace is still open to life by being unaltered.

Ah, the end of the argument. The church has spoken, that’s it. No need to go on about ‘natural law’ arguments then.

Natural law is interpreted by the Church. God is the creator and He speaks through His Church. What is your authority?

I believe we get the answer of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from God.

OK, so how do you know your private interpretation is true when it contradicts other’s interpretation?

As noted I disagree with homosexuality. However the ‘reason’ given by you is flawed; natural law. It is the application in a highly sinuous manner what is ‘right’ by what is ‘natural’.

Same as abortion; which I’ll deal with only, to point to the demerits of the natural-law argument. Abortion is seen as wrong (which I agree with). It’s seen wrong by Catholics due to the application of ‘natural law’ principles. That is, if it weren’t for a human act, that baby would naturally develop and grow, and be born. Therefore, by intervening in what is natural, and upsetting that, one is committing a sin. By implication - which is never dealt with properly by Catholics - is by the same ‘measure’ one could rule that ANY medical intervention is wrong. A person who gets sick should then naturally be allowed to either get better or die as per nature.

I am sorry but that is not what the Church teaches. The natural law argument is really about the natural moral law. It involves the end that God desires for use. It is based on the 10 commandments.

Abortion is wrong because it violates the prohibition against murder.

Now we have the same issue over homosexuality. An attempt to apply rules that aren’t made universal.

Rule: A non-procreative couple is wrong. Homosexuals can’t procreate. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

No, a couple that frustrates the act in anyway is non procreative. Unintentional sterility does not frustrate the act. Homosexual acts violate the design and end ordained by God. They are wrong becaue they violate the natural moral law. Yes, they are unnatural by biologic understanding too, but the Church talks about moral issues.

Infertile couples can’t procreate either. Application of the rule waivered due to matter of ‘choice’. Their ability or not to procreate is beyond their choice.

This is misunderstanding the theological understanding of the marital act, not simply a medical issue. The act is designed to be unitive and procreative that is open to the transmission of life. A moral distinction.

A couple that choose not to have children must therefore be wrong. No, wait, we’ll bring in another exemption for them.

If they have serious reasons and use a morally licit means then they have not violated the natural moral law.

A priest chooses to be celibate, no wait, will bring in another exemption. In effect the application of the rule goes to applying it to what you already have determined to be wrong. That is why it is flawed.

How is not having sex violating the principle that the sex act must not be altered?

 

[fix]

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie

1955…The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.