There are a lot of implications and misinterpretations on your part. Once again, I said no such thing. It is the Church, not me, that has an issue with married couples avoiding having children. If you disagree, you are not disagreeing with me, but rather the Church. The Church allow a married couple to (attempt to) avoid having children this to occur if certain conditions were met (financial hardship, etc.). My very simple question involved the Scriptural support for these exceptions.Once again this is your problem. You seem to be under the impression that Intentions to not have children is ALWAYS IMMORAL.
This has nothing to do with the question I asked. I fail to see the connection between the Blessed Virgin Mary not having sex and how intentionally having sex during infertile times to avoid having children because of hardship are connected.That is FALSE. I gave you the Scriptural example of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She abstained from sex all her life inside of marriage. She is was without any sin.
Once again this is a misrepresentation on your part. I don’t equate the two at all. The intent to not have children is what it is…it is the intent not to have children, which is viewed morally wrong, except under certain conditions. That is not my opinion…that is the opinion of the Church.Now forgive me for reminding you again but this is the line of thinking that lead you to equate NFP and ABC’s.
Because for you, it seemed like intent to have kids and not have kids was what separated the two.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Is this your personal opinion, the opinion of a particular pope, Christ, inference from the Old Testament, etc.?On the other hand, the couple that wants to avoid conceiving because they can’t even get by themselves and barely surviving is MORAL.
I haven’t mentioned effectiveness argument simply because it isn’t a criteria that the Church uses.In any case, unless abc is 100% effective, it is capable of reproduction, and the procreative aspect would be retained according to what you have said yourself.
This is all well and good, but it is irrelevant. You are arguing the specifics of the use of a word, then throwing your hands up when it doesn’t make sense.I’m not going to go crazy over the Church’s choice of words. The intent is that the word “Procreative” means that you shouldn’t use contraception.
Why? Because it insults the “good” design that the Creator intended.
But that isn’t what the word “procreative” means, so why use it? If you use it so that you can simultaneously take advantage of its real meaning, I have to wonder…I’m not going to go crazy over the Church’s choice of words. The intent is that the word “Procreative” means that you shouldn’t use contraception.
Why? Because it insults the “good” design that the Creator intended.
I think we are only talking specifically about the abstract use of the term “procreative”. Its not that we care about effectiveness, its only as it relates to the use of the term. If that makes sense…I haven’t mentioned effectiveness argument simply because it isn’t a criteria that the Church uses.
I have seen others noting how effective it is, even moreso than ABC. Along the same lines as what you’ve noted, the problem with using the effectiveness argument is that if NFP is more effective than ABC, then the logical conclusion is that those practicing ABC are more open to life…not exactly the conclusion that I think they intended.
But that isn’t what the word “procreative” means, so why use it? If you use it so that you can simultaneously take advantage of its real meaning, I have to wonder…
Okay - I see the logic in the word… but I can’t force you to see that. I’ll try some more if that’s where this conversation is going…This is all well and good, but it is irrelevant. You are arguing the specifics of the use of a word, then throwing your hands up when it doesn’t make sense.
This is a statement of faith you just made. It is not a reasoned discussion point.
Words and definitions are important. Otherwise I could just use any term I pleased, in a way that I or my group defines. That, of course, is silly.
The point is, that we should not use the term “procreative” as it is not used with any consistency to the common definition of the word. We should really say “complete inside the woman without any chemicals or barriers” as that is actually what you mean.
Is that acceptable?
Sheesh
Union and Procreation
- This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
I think the bolded part is important. The nature of the act renders them capable of generating new life. It doesn’t say the do generate life… it says that the* way the act is done* becomes capable.The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also** renders them capable of generating new life**—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
Faithfulness to God’s Design
Above PT said that this is a “statement of faith”…
- Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.** If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.** But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)
Actually, this doesn’t help at all. To be rendered capable of generating life, you obviously need to actually be capable. An infertile couple cannot be rendered capable of generating a new life. It doesn’t matter what the Church claims if it isn’t true.I think the bolded part is important. The nature of the act renders them capable of generating new life. It doesn’t say the do generate life… it says that the* way the act is done* becomes capable.
The NATURE OF THE ACT is rendered capable.Actually, this doesn’t help at all. To be rendered capable of generating life, you obviously need to actually be capable. An infertile couple cannot be rendered capable of generating a new life. It doesn’t matter what the Church claims if it isn’t true.
Also, an abc-couple is actually performing a sex act that renders them capable of generating new life, which would mean that abc is acceptable according to the text you cited.
Well, for an infertile couple, the nature of the act does not have the power to render them capable of generating a new life.The NATURE OF THE ACT is rendered capable.
I said nothing about the “couple”, as you did in your following sentence.
It renders THE ACT capable… not “them”.Well, for an infertile couple, the nature of the act does not have the power to render them capable of generating a new life.
For an abc-couple, it is still the case that the nature of the act render them capable of generating new life. So abc would be acceptable according to what you cited.
CCC 2399
The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
Yes, and the act, that is the sex act, is still capable of generating new life. Thus abc is an acceptable form of sex according to what you cited.It renders THE ACT capable… not “them”.
Nope!Yes, and the act, that is the sex act, is still capable of generating new life. Thus abc is an acceptable form of sex according to what you cited.
For infertile couples, if nothing is done TO THE ACT to cause THE ACT to be sterile, it is moral.For the infertile couple, the act is not rendered capable, since the act does not have that power if the couple is infertile.
Yes, but it is still procreative as long as it retains the capability of procreation. This is what you said: "The nature of the act renders them capable of generating new life. It doesn’t say the do generate life… it says that the way the act is done becomes capable. "Nope!
Contraceptive sex purposefully takes steps to cause the *act *to be sterile.
I did not say THEM… I said THE ACT.Yes, but it is still procreative as long as it retains the capability of procreation. This is what you said: "The nature of the act renders **them **capable of generating new life. It doesn’t say the do generate life… it says that the way the act is done becomes capable. "
Now, in your own words, the nature of contraceptive sex renders **them **capable of generating new life. It doesn’t say they do generate life… it says that the way the act is done becomes capable. So, you see, unless contraceptive sex does not render them capable of generating new life, abc is fine according to what you have said.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not it is capable of generating new life.For infertile couples, if nothing is done TO THE ACT to cause THE ACT to be sterile, it is moral.
THE ACT is done IN A WAY that is capable of generating new life.Which has nothing to do with whether or not it is capable of generating new life.
You did say them, I copied it. In any case, it doesn’t matter. The nature of the act is still rendered capable of generating new life. Any act that is capable of generating new life, is also in its nature capable of doing so. So the nature of the act of contraceptive sex is capable of generating new life, and it can only be otherwise if it isn’t. And for that to be the case, contraception would have to be 100% effective. It isn’t, so the facts are on my side.I did not say THEM… I said THE ACT.
Take “them”, “the couple”, and “fertility” ENTIRELY out of the conversation.