Sterile couples vs homosexual couples

[JohnDamian]

Okay. Now, why isn’t kissing wrong? What’s the logical reason? And, more importantly, why are female and male genitalia essential for the form of the action be properly ordered, yet, as in the case of a sterile couple, sperm and egg are not?

Kissing is not a sexual act. In many cultures it is fine for people to kiss others they don’t know; or even others of the same gender. Grand/Parent’s often kiss children. So kissing is not a sexual act. If people are sexualising kissing it may only be as a unitative part of the marital union; and not to be committed as a fornication or adultery etc.

Now; female and male genetalia are rather essential to the natural procreative process; however if there is some unwilled obstruction such as infertility; or a (previous/confessed) vasectomy on behalf of the man this frustration of the process is not a willed one. Wheras; it requires the will to use a contraceptive; it requires also the will to specifically stimulate organs in un-natural places. The lack of sperm and egg does not damage the union if it is not done on purpose; for example - Abraham’s wife was supposed not to have fertility; yet by an act of a miracle she conceived. As I demonstrated above; being Catholic and believing in miracles is enough justification to warrent a moral embrace even if one is doubtful about the ability to procreate – clearly; if we believe in God and Miracles; we can see through the example of Sarah that God may ordain it prudent to allow the woman to conceive naturally; so – so long as we are not wilfully frustrating the union we are not abusing the sexual functions.

The sterile on the other hand, while having an involuntary impediment to procreation, can still be unopposed to it, and they can still consummate the marriage. They do everything correctly, but something that’s not their fault, nor inherent in their form, is blocking them from procreation.

Absolutely! The sterile person can consumate the marraige; being open to (unlikely) possibility of a child; wheras an impotent person cannot consumate a marraige at all. See Section 3 of said Canon : *sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage. *

It’s an undeniably “anti-family” policy, not to mention “anti-adoption,” also. A couple who would adopt a Catholic child and raise that child Catholic, and they are forbidden from a sacramental marriage? That seems to add insult to injury. I wonder how many Catholics leave Rome for Protestantism because of this arbitrary rule. One would think the Church would be encouraging eligible couples to get married, not seeking out criteria that excludes those who would uphold “family values.”

An impotent person can enter into a valid marraige; a marraige is only invalid once it has been delcared such by the Church; ie; any children of such a marraige would be legitamate and not illigitemate; and other marital functions such as kissing and co-habiting would not be illegal.

A person can also make such a marraige a valid marraige see Can. 1163.

 

[GEddie]

It’s an undeniably “anti-family” policy, not to mention “anti-adoption,” also. A couple who would adopt a Catholic child and raise that child Catholic, and they are forbidden from a sacramental marriage? That seems to add insult to injury. I wonder how many Catholics leave Rome for Protestantism because of this arbitrary rule. One would think the Church would be encouraging eligible couples to get married, not seeking out criteria that excludes those who would uphold “family values.”

They are not seeking out such criteria.

There is a misunderstanding of the nature of the act of sex. It is not something that pairs of human bodies just do; it is intrinsic to marriage, and is often called the “marital act.” Despite what the world says, this act is so basic to marriage that it can be done nonsinfully ONLY within marriage, and it is essential to it.

It is no more unjust to say that persons who cannot achieve it “cannot” be married, than to say that someone who cannot use his legs “cannot” ride in the Tour de France.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JimG]

Infertile couples can still engage in marital relations. Same-sex couples cannot.

 

[awatkins69]

That answers a lot, all. However, I’m trying to figure out why it is not wrong for instance to use the mouth for kissing at all. Unless we are going to argue that an end of the mouth is to kiss - and how do we know what something’s end is? - then we must say that we are not using the mouth to fulfill its end; and if we are voluntarily ordering the mouth to something that isn’t its end, we are committing a disordered act. And since the good is nothing less then the fulfillment of an end, if we are not fulfilling the end then it is not-good. And, in terms of voluntary human action, it is immoral. Thus, kissing is immoral. Or am I missing something here?

Or is it okay to use something in a way that is not ordered to its end, so long as it is not *contrary *to its end? And in this case, how do we know what is *contrary *to an end, as opposed to what is simply something *other than *its end? It seems almost impossible to distinguish here. Why do we call a homosexual act *contrary *to the end of the reproductive organs, as opposed to *other than *the end of the reproductive organs?

 

[JohnDamian]

That answers a lot, all. However, I’m trying to figure out why it is not wrong for instance to use the mouth for kissing at all. Unless we are going to argue that an end of the mouth is to kiss - and how do we know what something’s end is? - then we must say that we are not using the mouth to fulfill its end; and if we are voluntarily ordering the mouth to something that isn’t its end, we are committing a disordered act. And since the good is nothing less then the fulfillment of an end, if we are not fulfilling the end then it is not-good. And, in terms of voluntary human action, it is immoral. Thus, kissing is immoral. Or am I missing something here?

That certainly raises another difficult question; but it seems that this one can be answered insofar as we can divide kissing into sexual and non-sexual actions; I am sure there is no need for a gratuitous explanation of the differences.

Non-sexual kissing; insofar as it acts as a greeting or celebratory embrace is being used as a function of the body to reflect a disposition of the mind. No one would object that a handshake or a hug is such a similar embrace or greeting; it follows from this that certain physical actions can be used as a greeting even if this act does not fulfil the specific teleology of the body part in question; because it is fulfilling some other disposition of the body as a whole (namely the function of greeting). In this regard; it is no different to sign language or vocal communication. In all these instances the body part in question (mouth; hand; etc.) are accidental to the purpose of the act; and as the act is not ordered towards an evil disposition then the functions pertinent to that act are not necessarily evil functions; nor are they accidentally evil functions because they contract no contrarity with moral order.

Sexual kissing; occurring within the appropriate medium of a valid marraige entails no obscenity as it entails no contrarity with the proper function of the organ; it also contracts no contrarity with moral law; as it is not used as a substitute or an end itself within sex; wheras instances such as masturbation sodomy etc would. Sexual kissing fulfills a unitative function of a marraige; and it seems apparrent that if it is not done to excite or contract violations of moral law against the Sixth Commandment; as kissing itself does not entail adultery; wheras other acts involving sexual organs ordered towards a disordered teleology would. Sexual kissing therefore; is no different than non-sexual kissing in reality; but only distinct in modality (viz. degree) – it acts as an extension of a celebration within the unity of marraige.

Or is it okay to use something in a way that is not ordered to its end, so long as it is not contrary to its end? And in this case, how do we know what is contrary to an end, as opposed to what is simply something other than its end? It seems almost impossible to distinguish here. Why do we call a homosexual act contrary to the end of the reproductive organs, as opposed to other than the end of the reproductive organs?

To imply that there is one end to any thing might be misleading; it seems that there can be more than one end to a particular body part; ie; the mouth is for eating; speaking; kissing. We know when some act is a disordered act when it entails a contradiction against the Ten commandments. We can know that male reproductive organs are used both for the end of urinating and for procreating; however if male reproductive organs were used towards the end of masturbation or sodomy; we would see that this would entail a contrarity with the Ten commandments; thus we can know that these latter two acts are disordered acts. We can also use the support of the moral teachings of the Church in favor of; or against the contrarity of a particular thing; although for the sake of general discussions it is both more practical and more pertinent to use the simpler template of the Ten Commandments.

 

[awatkins69]

Very good. So I suppose in short we could say it is not wrong to use something in a way directed *other than *its end, so long as it is not *contrary *to its end. However, in the second part, I’m not sure that people who do not accept Divine Revelation would accept an appeal to the Ten Commandments, and certainly not an appeal to Church authority. Thus we still leave unanswered the question as to how we can distinguish, at least from pure reason, whether something is *contrary *to an end, as opposed to whether something is only *other than *an end.

 

[JohnDamian]

Very good. So I suppose in short we could say it is not wrong to use something in a way directed *other than *its end, so long as it is not *contrary *to its end. However, in the second part, I’m not sure that people who do not accept Divine Revelation would accept an appeal to the Ten Commandments, and certainly not an appeal to Church authority. Thus we still leave unanswered the question as to how we can distinguish, at least from pure reason, whether something is *contrary *to an end, as opposed to whether something is only *other than *an end.

A final purpose can be defined in accordance to it being a purpose that requires no other purpose as a condition of its possibility. (s87 Critique of Judgement)

This definition is the most useful; however I don’t see how it would be practical to apply this to universals; thus we can either presuppose an end to something; or infer one - at least in cases where there is no apparrent end (viz. Biology).

In terms of inferring if the act is contrary to the end we must view each object in terms of it’s functions (designed or accidental); it follows chiefly that it’s designed functions necessarily rely on inference from biological changes and from revelation. As you rightly point out - revelation is useless in creating a practical teleology; we then must rely upon inference from biological function.

In terms of kissing; this can be seen as not an obstacle to the primary function of the mouth; that is eating - it is also clear and demonstrated that the mouth has more than one function (viz. Larynx). We can see that the mouth has the objects of eating (teeth etc.) and contains the area where the operations of the Larynx are manifest through; we can by inferece take it that the operation of eating is superior in priority too the operations of the Larynx; we can come to understand this by noting that the function of eating is more essential to the human life than the function of communication; so living a natural life we should not obstruct the prior with the posterior; we should value eating over talking. So we can see that in terms of a practical teleology; the eating function is essential to the end of the mouth; wheras the Larynx is merely accidental - thus we can see that in nature both an end and an accident can exist within a thing. It follows from this then; that certain functions can be of an object without necessarily being part of that objects end; without also entailing a contrarity – in nature. It follows then; that the priority of eating and talking must come before the act of kissing; as they are more important – but we can see so long as kissing does not prevent the act of talking and eating that kissing is not a contrary.

Now; I mention here two things with regards to the modern world; firstly is that by our capacity to organise; what is logically prior must not necessarily be temporarilly prior; but must at least be considered with a higher priority. I also mention here that what is in nature can be changed by science or habit; but we can all agree that this does not conform to a natural function; and is unless necessary or practical a deviation from normalacy.

Now; with regards to the sexual function; we can see that the organs in question are guided towards the end of procreation; the stimulation of these organs is accidental to the teleology of them; thus it is wrong to pursue the posterior before the prior; ie; it is wrong to pursue stimulation before procreation. Pursuing an accident of an object in opposition to the essential function of the object is wilfully contracting a contrarity with the heirachical nature of the object. Furthermore; stimulating the organs in such a way as to specifically opposed to the essential function of the object is to willfully contract against nature; so as to be both in opposition to the heirachy of the act and the natural order; and entail a contrarity in both. Furthermore; to contract a stimulation of organs with no intention of contracting the full embrace or function of those organs is a disordered and un-natural behaviour; as it directly opposes the natural order; and it elicits a contrarity to the full and wholesome marital embrace that is brought together in unity for the purposes of procreation and love; such stimulation is contrary to the prior without doubt; and contrary to the posterior at least insofar as it fails to have the wholesome generosity of a procreative marraige – thus to elicit any of these things; specifically with intent is to contract a contrarity to the end of the organs.

As an aside; it is particularily difficult to construct such arguments against biological functions; as so many have dual ends; such as urination as well as procreation etc. Thus I feel these arguments slightly unsatisfactory…