I admit I’m rather annoyed with the quality of posts by the dissenters here. I had hoped those who openly rebel against Church teachings would have at least something substantive on which to base their rebellion.
“Dissenters”…“Rebellion”…etc.
What a great way to have a discussion. Insult and demean.
With that said:
- The human sexual faculty points toward the end of procreation; we know this because of the distinct sexual configuration of men and women and because conception occurs in principle as a result of sex (in other words, the essence of the sexual faculty points toward the end of procreation). Therefore, goodness consists in using this faculty in a manner consistent with its end (i.e., intravaginal ejaculation) and sin/disorder in using it in a manner contrary to that end.
There is an inherent problem with line of thinking. “In a manner consistent with its end” does not equal “intervaginal ejaculation” if the discussion is about procreation. Having intervaginal ejaculation
intentionally during the infertile period for the purposes of avoiding having children is
clearly disordered if you’re arguing the primary purpose of sex is procreation. Even the Church recognizes this, by placing restriction on NFP, part of which involves having intervaginal ejaculation during the infertile period. Sex during the infertile period by using NFP makes places pleasure above procreation.
- Because procreation results in pregnancy, and because pregnant women are generally vulnerable and in need of care and support, and because newborn children are likewise in need of care, support, and proper instruction during the formative years of their lives, the sexual act entails a degree of continuing commitment (and therefore also a unitive aspect to sex) that gives rise to the institution of marriage.
This line of thinking is dismissive of people like myself. The primary purpose of marriage (for those not elderly) is not about having sex and raising children; it is simply about raising children. The focus is always on what people do in their bed, yet it misses the point that not everyone raises their own children…some of us raise other’s children. If one is to focus solely on those children created by their own DNA, then they miss the big picture.
Contraception in this case is irrelevant. Adoptive families are clearly open to life. Abandoned children don’t care if someone was wearing a piece of rubber. In fact, in some cases those might even be happy the did, because otherwise they might be ignored in some orphanage in some atheist country, or worse.
- This principle pays no regard to the outcome of the act: it is merely considered with the proper use or ordering of our faculties. Thus chronically infertile couples can marry, provided they can complete the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end; but same-sex couples may not, because they cannot.
Chronically infertile couples are not having procreative sex…period. My wife and I aren’t having any children naturally (because of natural issues), and we have sex for pleasure…period. And we’re having a blast doing so.
Likewise, it remains licit to have sex during (even exclusively during) natural periods of infertility, provided the sex act is completed in a manner consistent with its end.
Time for some more iron head training. Where’s that brick wall???
Conditions are place on having sex during the infertile period for the purposes of having children. Why is the Church constantly ignored by those that support the Church in this manner?
- Contraception is naturally contrary to the end of procreation, hence why it is called contraception; therefore, it is illicit.
NFP is therefore illicit.
Polygamy violates this principle because it violates the commitment which the sexual act naturally demands of couples.
Polygamy (and variants) actually occurs in nature, still exists is some primitive societies, and was permitted in the OT. The reason it doesn’t exist in many areas of the world today is by choice.
