Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

“You can tell it’s fertile because a pregnancy that arises out of the second type of act is an indication that the act has been PROPERLY done.”
Good, do you agree that if a pregnancy does not arise then the act has not been done properly? It means that the act was infertile. Correct?

The particular act was infertile, but it was not the *type *of action that is infertile.

As for “if a pregnancy does not arise then the act has not been done properly”, that’s patently absurd, and does not follow from what I said.

“Gee honey, you didn’t get pregnant that time. Maybe if we try a different angle, or if we do a little wiggle in the middle, it’ll work.”

The act of moving from point A to point B can be done in a natural way - on your foot
… or in an unnatural way by a car.

I am done responding to this. Read G.E. Anscombe on this point:

Now I’d better pause a bit about this expression “against the natural law”. We should notice it as a curiosity that in popular discussion there’s usually more mention of “natural law” in connexion with the Catholic prohibition on contraception than in connexion with any other matters. One even hears people talk of “the argument from natural law”. It’s probable that there’s a very strong association of words here: on the one hand through the contrast, “artificial” / “natural” and on the other through the terms “unnatural vice” or “sin against nature” which are labels for a particular range of sins against chastity, that is those acts which are wrong of their kind, which aren’t wrong just from the circumstances that the persons aren’t married: they’re not doing what would be all right if they were married and had good motives - they’re doing something really different. That’s the range of sins against chastity which got this label “sin against nature”.

In fact there’s no greater connexion of “natural law” with the prohibition on contraception than with any other part of morality. Any type of wrong action is “against the natural law”: stealing is, framing someone is, oppressing people is. “Natural law” is simply a way of speaking about the whole of morality, used by Catholic thinkers because they believe the general precepts of morality are laws promulgated by God our Creator in the enlightened human understanding when it is thinking in general terms about what are good and what are bad actions. That is to say, the discoveries of reflection and reasoning when we think straight about these things are God’s legislation to us (whether we realize this or not).

In thinking about conduct we have to advert to laws of nature in another sense. That is, to very general and very well-known facts of nature, and also to ascertained scientific laws. For example, the resources of the earth have to be worked on to supply our needs and enhance our lives: this is a general and well-known fact of nature. Hence there needs to be control over resources by definite owners, be they tribes or states or cities or corporations or clubs or individual people: and this is the institution of property. Laws of nature in a scientific sense will affect the rules about control that it is reasonable to have. The type of installations we need if electricity is to be made available, for example, and the way they work, will be taken into account in framing the laws of the country or city about control of this resource. The institution of property has as its corollary the “law of nature” in the ethical sense, the sense of a law of morality, which forbids stealing. It’s useful, very useful, to get clear about all this, it should help us to think and act justly and not to be too mad about property, too.

It was in these various ways that the Pope spoke of natural laws in Humanae Vitae- the expression occurs in all these senses - and the topic of natural law in the ethical sense has not any greater relevance to contraception than to anything else. In particular, it is not because there is a natural law that something artificial is condemned.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php

 

[Jaaanosik]

The particular act was infertile, but it was not the *type *of action that is infertile.

As for “if a pregnancy does not arise then the act has not been done properly”, that’s patently absurd, and does not follow from what I said.

“Gee honey, you didn’t get pregnant that time. Maybe if we try a different angle, or if we do a little wiggle in the middle, it’ll work.”

I am done responding to this. Read G.E. Anscombe on this point:

orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php

The argument is not against cars.

It’s about a person not using naturally given way of transportation all the time.
As oppose to the marital act where naturally given way is being required all the time.
Why the double standard?

It’s about investigation of the telos. In the first example the purpose of legs is to carry a body.
If we apply the same logic as HV does to the marital act then in order to be consistent people should use legs all the time.

If you say human inventions - cars are OK then human inventions - condoms should be OK in the other case as well.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The argument is not against cars.

It’s about a person not using naturally given way of transportation all the time.
As oppose to the marital act where naturally given way is being required all the time.
Why the double standard?

It’s about investigation of the telos. In the first example the purpose of legs is to carry a body.
If we apply the same logic as HV does to the marital act then in order to be consistent people should use legs all the time.

If you say human inventions - cars are OK then human inventions - condoms should be OK in the other case as well.

Are you saying that if I say cars can be used for transportation, then I must say ANY other object can be used for ANY other purpose?

Surely they can only be used for licit purposes. But then you must show that making sex infertile is a licit purpose!

 

[Jaaanosik]

Are you saying that if I say cars can be used for transportation, then I must say ANY other object can be used for ANY other purpose?

Surely they can only be used for licit purposes. But then you must show that making sex infertile is a licit purpose!

Yes, to the first sentence.

The only way how to say that the act was infertile is by the end result.
Any time the act does not lead to a conception of a baby the act was infertile.
HV say it’s OK to make the act infertile by observing the fertility cycle.
The NFP actions lead to the infertile marital acts. The NFP can be abused.

I really don’t see what is wrong with making sex infertile.

 

[Rau]

Yes, to the first sentence.

The only way how to say that the act was infertile is by the end result.
Any time the act does not lead to a conception of a baby the act was infertile.
HV say it’s OK to make the act infertile by observing the fertility cycle.
The NFP actions lead to the infertile marital acts. The NFP can be abused.

I really don’t see what is wrong with making sex infertile.

By your definition of the word infertile, most sex acts are so. What conclusion do you draw from that?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, to the first sentence.

Wow. You believe any object can be licitly used for any purpose.

So I can use a gun to kill a child? I can use a frying pan to whack old ladies crossing the street?

Surely you don’t mean that. So what DO you mean?

 

[Prodigirl]

Yes, to the first sentence.

The only way how to say that the act was infertile is by the end result.
Any time the act does not lead to a conception of a baby the act was infertile.
HV say it’s OK to make the act infertile by observing the fertility cycle.
The NFP actions lead to the infertile marital acts. The NFP can be abused.

I really don’t see what is wrong with making sex infertile.

I have not read this complete thread, so I ask you: do you endorse (infertile) homosexual sex? If not, why not?

I have to say, from my own observations I have drawn the conclusion that practicing Catholics can certainly squash curiosity by just refusing to address questions. Does NO ONE HERE care to address how someone can be completely “open to life” and still chart the woman’s fertility? Does NO ONE see this as an issue of avoidance, or an act of contraception?

Why not just allow God to make all the decisions about your families. Take a stand. If God loves you and wants you to have eleven children, have at it. Otherwise, if you’re employing NFP, you are mocking the “open to life” doctrine and joining all those millions of Catholics across the globe who have said, “This is impractical. We just can’t do this.” I just don’t see any grey area. Either you are trying to manage fertility and your sexuality, and space the arrival of children, or you are not absolutely, irrevocably, unconditionally “open to life.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have not read this complete thread, so I ask you: do you endorse (infertile) homosexual sex? If not, why not?

This is what puzzles me about Jaaanosik’s position. Despite saying that oral sex to orgasm is OK, and despite endorsing contraceptive sex, Jaaanosik says that gay sex is wrong and gay marriage is wrong. I don’t get it.

 

[Rau]

… Either you are trying to manage fertility and your sexuality, and space the arrival of children, or you are not absolutely, irrevocably, unconditionally “open to life.”

You see a conflict because you have in your mind a meaning for those three words “open to life” that would stand at odds with the other (spacing children, etc). But the Church does not teach what you have in your mind. The Church does not teach “be open to life” with the meaning you ascribe. So exactly what argument are you arguing?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Wow. You believe any object can be licitly used for any purpose.

So I can use a gun to kill a child? I can use a frying pan to whack old ladies crossing the street?

Surely you don’t mean that. So what DO you mean?

Well, things are things and they will be things.
Things are not responsible how they are being used.
The agent that acts is though.

So…

Are you saying that if I say cars can be used for transportation, then I must say ANY other object can be used for ANY other purpose?

Surely they can only be used for licit purposes. But then you must show that making sex infertile is a licit purpose!

Yes, to the first sentence in the context of the second one - used for licit purpose.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I have not read this complete thread, so I ask you: do you endorse (infertile) homosexual sex? If not, why not?

I have to say, from my own observations I have drawn the conclusion that practicing Catholics can certainly squash curiosity by just refusing to address questions. Does NO ONE HERE care to address how someone can be completely “open to life” and still chart the woman’s fertility? Does NO ONE see this as an issue of avoidance, or an act of contraception?

Why not just allow God to make all the decisions about your families. Take a stand. If God loves you and wants you to have eleven children, have at it. Otherwise, if you’re employing NFP, you are mocking the “open to life” doctrine and joining all those millions of Catholics across the globe who have said, “This is impractical. We just can’t do this.” I just don’t see any grey area. Either you are trying to manage fertility and your sexuality, and space the arrival of children, or you are not absolutely, irrevocably, unconditionally “open to life.”

The marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex is OK in the marriage. That was revealed to us by God through the Bible.

The homosexuals don’t have the marriage. Their sex is outside of the marriage and it’s not OK.

I agree with the rest. It’s a hypocrisy.

 

[underacloud]

I have to say, from my own observations I have drawn the conclusion that practicing Catholics can certainly squash curiosity by just refusing to address questions. Does NO ONE HERE care to address how someone can be completely “open to life” and still chart the woman’s fertility?

Does NO ONE see this as an issue of avoidance, or an act of contraception?

It IS an issue of avoidance. As I’ve said all along.

It is NOT an issue of contraception as the Church uses the term (this of course depends on exactly how one defines the term; here, the meaning of words are not mere semantics, they are crucial to understanding each other).

Please note that “open to life” is but a loose paraphrase of the actual doctrine, and easily misunderstood, as you seem to have done.

Why not just allow God to make all the decisions about your families. Take a stand. If God loves you and wants you to have eleven children, have at it. Otherwise, if you’re employing NFP, you are mocking the “open to life” doctrine and joining all those millions of Catholics across the globe who have said, “This is impractical. We just can’t do this.” I just don’t see any grey area. Either you are trying to manage fertility and your sexuality, and space the arrival of children, or you are not absolutely, irrevocably, unconditionally “open to life.”

Yes, people who use NFP are trying to manage fertility. Yes, we have all said this. That is the point of it; the reason the doctrine was written. The discussion then is regarding the *means *to acheive this. You don’t see a distinction between NFP and contraception - whereas the Church and Catholics who practise NFP do. And that distinction is described/defined in Humanae Vitae. Reading it would help you understand the Catholic position, which you claim to want to understand better. No doubt you will still disagree with it, but at least you will know with what it is you disagree.

The document also addresses your question “Why not just allow God to make all the decisions about your families.”

Here is the link for you: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[Rau]

I agree with the rest. It’s a hypocrisy.

It would be an hypocrisy if, by “open to life”, the Church meant “never (consciously) do anything with the objective of avoiding conception”. The Church has no problem with avoiding pregnancy. It has expressed teaching on why that can be appropriate, and how it can be approached.

 

[Jaaanosik]

By your definition of the word infertile, most sex acts are so. What conclusion do you draw from that?

God himself does not intend to connect a sperm and an ovum every single time.
It’s OK for people to do the same. We don’t have to intend conception every single time.
It’s OK to make the marital act infertile.
It’s all about how it can be done.
Does it have to be natural or a human invention can help with that?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex is OK in the marriage. That was revealed to us by God through the Bible.

The homosexuals don’t have the marriage. Their sex is outside of the marriage and it’s not OK.

I agree with the rest. It’s a hypocrisy.

Jaaanosik,

Just so you know, the phrase “the homosexuals” is potentially offensive to gay people. They prefer to be called “gay people” or perhaps “homosexual people”, but generally not “homosexuals” and certainly not “the homosexuals”.

I don’t think anyone here is offended, but it is worth mentioning.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, things are things and they will be things.

I think this is pretty much all that needs to be said.

 

[Jaaanosik]

It would be an hypocrisy if, by “open to life”, the Church meant “never (consciously) do anything with the objective of avoiding conception”. The Church has no problem with avoiding pregnancy. It has expressed teaching on why that can be appropriate, and how it can be approached.

The issue is that many people understand procreative aspect as intent to conceive.
The Church sees the procreative aspect as a way how to have sex.
Saying we are open to life but we don’t want to get pregnant at the same time leads to split personalities.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik,

Just so you know, the phrase “the homosexuals” is potentially offensive to gay people. They prefer to be called “gay people” or perhaps “homosexual people”, but generally not “homosexuals” and certainly not “the homosexuals”.

I don’t think anyone here is offended, but it is worth mentioning.

Thanks, English is not even my second but third language. Good to know.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Saying we are open to life but we don’t want to get pregnant at the same time leads to split personalities.

False! I am open to life, but I don’t want my wife to get pregnant. If she did get pregnant, I would be happy, though.

If one would honestly respond to a pregnancy with an unmitigated negative attitude, there is either something wrong in one’s environment (oppression) or something wrong with one’s decisions (sin).

 

[Prodigirl]

You see a conflict because you have in your mind a meaning for those three words “open to life” that would stand at odds with the other (spacing children, etc). But the Church does not teach what you have in your mind. The Church does not teach “be open to life” with the meaning you ascribe. So exactly what argument are you arguing?

What about this, then?

"With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them … "

I read this to mean that men (not “man”) should not demand any “approved” sex act from his partner. If both partners are wanting to engage in intercourse, they may do so, with absolutely no thought as to the appropriate time in her cycle. If a child is conceived, great, they go with it; if not, great, no sweat.

And this?

"From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

As far as I can tell, this precludes temperature taking, charting fertility, checking cervical mucus. It’s extremely wearisome to keep reading how NFP is NOT family planning. Again, NFP is used more to protect against pregnancy (possibly thwarting God’s will) than it is used to ensure conception. No argument you can attempt to make here will speak to me as loudly as these actual words of the Humanae Vitae.