The church finally says ABC is ok!! What would you all think of that??

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PatriceA said:
The problem is you keep applying a condition that the Church allows for collecting a sperm sample for medical testing to the every day act of the marital union. The hole in the condom in permitted by the Church in a medical scenerio. When the couple needs to collect a sperm sample, there is a medical necessity for the condom, usually because the couple is experiencing infertility and the only way medical tests can be done in compliance with Church teachings is to collect SOME of the sperm but still allowing the couple to complete the marital act as it is intended. The hole in the condom is so that the couple is still “open to life”, however God wants that to happen. The hole in the condom is not some kind of “loop hole” for the couple to avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...
But the teaching is that intent cannot change an intrinsically evil act into a good or even morally neutral act, so the act of having sex with a condom on that has a hole in it is not intrinsically evil or grave matter, correct? NOW suddenly the intent of the couple comes into play, where it formerly had no effect?
 
Also, can anyone answer the question as to whether it matters WHERE the man ejaculates as long as the semen ends up in the right place in the context of the same act? (I’m not talking about artificial insemination here).
 
PatriceA said:
The problem is you keep applying a condition that the Church allows for collecting a sperm sample for medical testing to the every day act of the marital union. The hole in the condom in permitted by the Church in a medical scenerio. When the couple needs to collect a sperm sample, there is a medical necessity for the condom, usually because the couple is experiencing infertility and the only way medical tests can be done in compliance with Church teachings is to collect SOME of the sperm but still allowing the couple to complete the marital act as it is intended. The hole in the condom is so that the couple is still “open to life”, however God wants that to happen. The hole in the condom is not some kind of “loop hole” for the couple to avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why anybody would want to use a condom in this fashion for any other reason but testing. 🤷
 
LaSainte said:
Also, can anyone answer the question as to whether it matters WHERE the man ejaculates as long as the semen ends up in the right place in the context of the same act? (I’m not talking about artificial insemination here).
Click to expand...
The completion of the marital act must take place where it was intended. If some involuntary accident happens. …such is just that “an involuntary accident” but one can be culpable if one say knew such would happen…or should have avoided the near occasion etc.
 
Bookcat said:
Hello,

As you continue your Catholic formation in life you will find that the Church actually teaches that a “intention” cannot make an objectively evil action into a good one. No matter how good it is.

In your first example …not only is intention good…but the object is good…it is a different object. It is “self defense” not murder.

And an evil intention (like to contracept …can make an objectively good action to be sinful…

Read this section: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

and this vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

Keep studying! I too am a convert…

Praised be Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see.

So the point is that the act itself is qualitatively different: that using a condom for contraception is a different act (and a sinful one) than using one with a hole in it for the purposes of collecting sperm for medical purposes (a permissible one under that circumstance).

Thank you for the clarification. 🙂
 
Bookcat said:
The completion of the marital act must take place where it was intended. If some involuntary accident happens. …such is just that “an involuntary accident” but one can be culpable if one say knew such would happen…or should have avoided the near occasion etc.
Click to expand...
Why would this be? All of the functions of proper sex would be present. Unitive…check. Procreative…check. Good intentions…check. No use of contraception…check. All of the arguments that are used to stamp out contraception are eliminated here, and STILL there are restrictions placed on the act? Why? Simple prudishness? Where can I find this teaching?
 
LaSainte said:
Why would this be? All of the functions of proper sex would be present. Unitive…check. Procreative…check. Good intentions…check. No use of contraception…check. All of the arguments that are used to stamp out contraception are eliminated here, and STILL there are restrictions placed on the act? Why? Simple prudishness? Where can I find this teaching?
Click to expand...
To intentionally not complete the act would violate both the unitive and procreative aspects…
 
LaSainte said:
But the teaching is that intent cannot change an intrinsically evil act into a good or even morally neutral act, so the act of having sex with a condom on that has a hole in it is not intrinsically evil or grave matter, correct? NOW suddenly the intent of the couple comes into play, where it formerly had no effect?
Click to expand...
You still are missing the point, that the hole in the condom is permitted for one and one purpose only, to collect a sperm sample for medical purposes. It is not a grave matter because the hole is still allowing the couple to be “open to life”. The medical testing does not need ALL the sperm, just some to test.
 
Bookcat said:
To intentionally not complete the act would violate both the unitive and procreative aspects…
Click to expand...
Not true. The condom scenario for sperm testing is licit. Why? It MUST be unitive and procreative even if the man ejaculates into a condom and only a small amount of semen makes it into the wife, or the Church WOULD NOT ALLOW IT, period. The semen travels THROUGH the condom and some eventually makes it to the vagina. The intent is not to contracept.

So it should be unitive and procreative if a man has sex with his wife but ejaculates somewhere else and the semen still makes it to the right place within the context of the same marital act if there is no intent to prevent conception. There is no difference.
 
PatriceA said:
You still are missing the point, that the hole in the condom is permitted for one and one purpose only, to collect a sperm sample for medical purposes. It is not a grave matter because the hole is still allowing the couple to be “open to life”. The medical testing does not need ALL the sperm, just some to test.
Click to expand...
Right. So as long as some of the sperm makes it into the vagina, then the couple is still open to life and it should not be grave matter, especially if there is no contraceptive intent in either scenario.
 
LaSainte said:
Not true. The condom scenario for sperm testing is licit. Why? It MUST be unitive and procreative even if the man ejaculates into a condom and only a small amount of semen makes it into the wife, or the Church WOULD NOT ALLOW IT, period. The semen travels THROUGH the condom and some eventually makes it to the vagina. The intent is not to contracept.

So it should be unitive and procreative if a man has sex with his wife but ejaculates somewhere else and the semen still makes it to the right place within the context of the same marital act if there is no intent to prevent conception. There is no difference.
Click to expand...
Yes it is true what I noted.

He is intending to ejaculate and in fact doing so outside the marital act.

The marital act is to be actual marital act…
 
LaSainte said:
Not true. The condom scenario for sperm testing is licit. Why? It MUST be unitive and procreative even if the man ejaculates into a condom and only a small amount of semen makes it into the wife, or the Church WOULD NOT ALLOW IT, period. The semen travels THROUGH the condom and some eventually makes it to the vagina. The intent is not to contracept.

So it should be unitive and procreative if a man has sex with his wife but ejaculates somewhere else and the semen still makes it to the right place within the context of the same marital act if there is no intent to prevent conception. There is no difference.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Invitro fertilization is prohibited for Catholics for the very reason that a man ejaculates somewhere else.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes it is true what I noted.

He is intending to ejaculate and in fact doing so outside the marital act.

The marital act is to be actual marital act…
Click to expand...
The “marital act” is not just the part where the penis ejaculates into he vagina, it is the entire experience. Otherwise, it would not be licit for a man to make his wife climax after himself.

Unless you’re saying that a man can make his wife climax whenever he wants to regardless of whether or not sex has taken/will take/is taking place?
 
PatriceA said:
Wrong. Invitro fertilization is prohibited for Catholics for the very reason that a man ejaculates somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Yes, into a cup at he hospital. No sex even takes place. That is not the scenario here.
 
LaSainte said:
The “marital act” is not just the part where the penis ejaculates into he vagina, it is the entire experience. Otherwise, it would not be licit for a man to make his wife climax after himself.
Click to expand...
I was using the term in the more strict sense.
 
Bookcat said:
I was using the term in the more strict sense.
Click to expand...
Still not understanding. If he man can make his wife climax before or even after sex as long as it is within the context of the marital act in general and the act is open to life, then why wouldn’t the opposite be true as long as the act remains open to life? I would think that it would. if not, WHY not and where is this teaching to be found?

It doesn’t matter where or when the wife orgasms as long as the semen make it to the right place and it happens within the timeframe of he totality of the act Then it shouldn’t matter where or when the husband does either, as long as the semen makes it to the right place and it happens within the timeframe of the totality of he act.
 
The climax of the husband is needed to be in a certain place in order for the act to be as it should be. To intentionally do so otherwise would be contrary the marital act and the order of things…
 
LaSainte said:
Still not understanding. If he man can make his wife climax before or even after sex as long as it is within the context of the marital act in general and the act is open to life, then why wouldn’t the opposite be true as long as the act remains open to life?

.
Click to expand...
Because it not necessary for the act that the wife’s climax happen in a particular place or time within that the context of the Marital act …
 
Bookcat said:
The climax of the husband is needed to be in a certain place in order for the act to be as it should be. To intentionally do so otherwise would be contrary the marital act and the order of things…sinful.
Click to expand...
No, for the act to be as it should be, it needs to be both unitive and procreative, period. If the penis enters the vagina at some point, and sperm enters the vagina at some point, then what difference does it make WHERE the climax occurs? It has nothing to do with either the unity or the procreativity of the act., just as where and when he wife climaxes also does not have anything to do with the unity or procreativity of the act.

And I still do not see where this teaching can be found (a book, an encyclical, a letter)? This sounds like strict opinion and conjecture.

The bottom line is that we are still dealing with a unitive, procreative act with no intent to contracept. Those are he only things dictated by the Church regarding the marital act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top