Unitive and Procreative - But Why?

[Thinking10]

Yeah, hence why, e.g., gorging yourself and then inducing vomiting so you can gorge yourself more, a la the ancient Roman aristocracy, would be a pretty grave sin.

This is more analogous to promiscuity than occasional use of a condom by a married couple.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The woman does not withdraw anything. Do you understand the cyclic fertility of the woman, created in her nature by God? You are effective charging God with contraception. Is that your goal? Is that honestly your understanding of the facts?

Questions about the natural law? What was not answered?
Are any of your questions actually questions, or are you actually challenging under the guise of asking? Frankly, if you are merely setting up “questions” to express your contrary pre-existent opinions, then I’ll pass. If you honestly don’t understand but would like to understand, I’ll try to help you. But please, no lies. Let’s be honest with one another.

The woman makes sure that the ovum does not come to the date with the sperm.
No, I am not charging God with anything. That’s your interpretation. I am just stating observed facts.

God does not intend to connect the sperm and the ovum every single time. God created His way how to achieve that.
Why humans can not create own way of achieving the same thing?

Think about this. God created us in such way that we walk on our legs from point A to point B. That’s God’s design - the natural way of the transportation.
We invented cars and airplanes for the transportation.

What is the difference between these to examples? How come it’s OK to have cars but not OK to have condoms?

Why it’s OK to use x-rays (very very much unnatural thing) in order to identify and apply a proper health treatment?

The natural moral law stands on the human nature - capability to reason.
How was the capability to reason used in case of putting the AND between the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital act?

 

[Jaaanosik]

The morality of an act is not determined primarily by its consequences. That’s consequentialism, which is formally condemned, most recently by JPII in Veritatis Splendor.

Please, tell me the difference between mutilation and amputation.

 

[fide]

The woman makes sure that the ovum does not come to the date with the sperm.
No, I am not charging God with anything. That’s your interpretation. I am just stating observed facts.

God does not intend to connect the sperm and the ovum every single time. God created His way how to achieve that.
Why humans can not create own way of achieving the same thing?

Think about this. God created us in such way that we walk on our legs from point A to point B. That’s God’s design - the natural way of the transportation.
We invented cars and airplanes for the transportation.

What is the difference between these to examples? How come it’s OK to have cars but not OK to have condoms?

Why it’s OK to use x-rays (very very much unnatural thing) in order to identify and apply a proper health treatment?

The natural moral law stands on the human nature - capability to reason.
How was the capability to reason used in case of putting the AND between the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital act?

You ignored my questions about your questions. I’ll conclude that you are not looking for answers or resolution, you are looking for debate. Some people enjoy debating. Maybe you can find one of them.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You ignored my questions about your questions. I’ll conclude that you are not looking for answers or resolution, you are looking for debate. Some people enjoy debating. Maybe you can find one of them.

Now I am not sure what you are talking about. I am looking for answers to my questions.
Debate is a way to achieve that. I do not claim I know everything.
What is your problem with a debate?

“You ignored my questions about your questions.” - usually it’s not a good practice answer a question with another question. It might work if the answer is obvious.

If you mean this:
“Questions about the natural law? What was not answered?”
then this was not answered:
"… how do we know what is moral and what is not moral according to the natural moral law?

Even more, the natural moral law is universal. It’s supposed to be same for everybody, so how this can be achieved?"

 

[fide]

Now I am not sure what you are talking about. I am looking for answers to my questions.
Debate is a way to achieve that. I do not claim I know everything.
What is your problem with a debate?

“You ignored my questions about your questions.” - usually it’s not a good practice answer a question with another question. It might work if the answer is obvious.

If you mean this:
“Questions about the natural law? What was not answered?”
then this was not answered:
"… how do we know what is moral and what is not moral according to the natural moral law?

Even more, the natural moral law is universal. It’s supposed to be same for everybody, so how this can be achieved?"

Just one comment: Another way to find answers to life’s questions is to find a trustworthy authority, and become a disciple. “Everyone when he is fully taught, will be like his teacher.” Being a disciple requires much listening, and little talking - much silence so as to reflect, to ponder, to assimilate, to grow, to come into understanding.

Debate? Too much talking, too much noise, too many words, too little depth.

You have “Catholic” next to your name.

 

[sw85]

You didn’t answer the question.

Is this statement true too?

Yes, if you mean “only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition.”

No, I did the answer the question, when I said, “Yeah.” “Yeah” means “yes.” It is a moral evil to deliberately subvert the natural end of the digestive faculty just as it is a moral evil to deliberately subvert the end of the reproductive faculty, respecting of course the usual caveats re: the good of the whole person.

This is more analogous to promiscuity than occasional use of a condom by a married couple.

I suppose that’d be a relevant observation if you thought the distinction was (morally) meaningful, but it isn’t. Frequency of a sin doesn’t make a sin any less sinful.

Please, tell me the difference between mutilation and amputation.

Removing diseased testicles is an example of amputation. Removing perfectly healthy testicles so you can have fake lady parts grafted on in their place and thereby call yourself a “woman” is an example of mutilation. The former subordinates the natural end of a diseased and dysfunctional organ to the good to the natural end of the whole person. The latter subordinates the natural end of a healthy and functional organ that is working just the way it’s supposed to to a psychotic flight of fancy.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Just one comment: Another way to find answers to life’s questions is to find a trustworthy authority, and become a disciple. “Everyone when he is fully taught, will be like his teacher.” Being a disciple requires much listening, and little talking - much silence so as to reflect, to ponder, to assimilate, to grow, to come into understanding.

Debate? Too much talking, too much noise, too many words, too little depth.

You have “Catholic” next to your name.

Thomas,
I understand and I respect your choice to opt out of the discussion.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Removing diseased testicles is an example of amputation. Removing perfectly healthy testicles so you can have fake lady parts grafted on in their place and thereby call yourself a “woman” is an example of mutilation. The former subordinates the natural end of a diseased and dysfunctional organ to the good to the natural end of the whole person. The latter subordinates the natural end of a healthy and functional organ that is working just the way it’s supposed to to a psychotic flight of fancy.

Good, did you know that the Church says the mutilation is intrinsically evil and the amputation is accepted just because of as you say - “to the good to the natural end of the whole person”.
Is this consequentialism or not?

 

[Thinking10]

I suppose that’d be a relevant observation if you thought the distinction was (morally) meaningful, but it isn’t. Frequency of a sin doesn’t make a sin any less sinful.

So eating one or two cookies is just as sinful as eating 100, right?

 

[davidv]

So eating one or two cookies is just as sinful as eating 100, right?

What is the difference between well ordered eating and gluttony? Is well order eating sinful? If not, this is an inappropriate analogy.

 

[Thinking10]

What is the difference between well ordered eating and gluttony? Is well order eating sinful? If not, this is an inappropriate analogy.

What is the difference between promiscuity and occasional use of contraception by a married couple?

 

[Thinking10]

If we are to only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition, we can conclude that drinking one soft drink is as sinful as drinking 100, since the frequency of the sin does not matter.

If we are to only use sex in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction, we can conclude than a single instance of contraception use by a married couple is as sinful as contraceptive use with 20 sex partners, because the frequency of the sin does not matter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The temperature monitoring is done only when there are some health threat related issues.
That’s natural.
So is the fertility a health threat?

I’m not sure what you mean by that’s natural, but temperature monitoring is not the point here. The point remains that prudent NFP users still give all of themselves that they are able when entering the expression of giving of self.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In the case of non-procreative love, we elevate pleasure and the body over the other person as a person. In the case of procreative love, we elevate the reproductive abilities of the person over the other person as a person.

The reason I would disagree with this is because procreative love retains the unitive dimension.

Over a lifetime of such interactions, though each sex act might not lead to an understanding of that person’s wholeness, the sum of the relationship well could. If that’s the case, why then would a single instance of sex that is not unitive or procreative be all that bad?

Because the sinfulness is the deliberate entry into the expression of self-giving while wilfully refusing to let that expression be complete. It is “lying” with the body, as is sometimes said.

I can’t, really. I think that murder is unlawful because God says it is, as is theft. Both are prohibited by the Ten Commandments, and both would seem to violate Christ’s teaching to love one another.

But those are matters of divinely revealed law, not natural law.

Even skeptics (apart from murderous sociopaths) understand murder is wrong. Why? What could you tell a murderous sociopath to explain that murder is wrong? It would have to be on the grounds that human beings have certain qualities due them and mere sensibility recognizes that life is one of those dues. As is right to ownership and thus why it is wrong to steal. Etc… Right? Thus, the natural law would identify these truths understood by reason that there is indeed a proper order of things, and among them is right to life, ownership, etc… To be human is to merit this proper order. Deviation from such is where moral evil comes into the coversation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Disease is natural, but we cure it, etc. I’m sure you’ve heard the argument before.

I like a lot of what sw85 said to you in reply to some of what I’ve also said, by the way. As to your comment here, I think it reveals that we recognize disease as a dysfunction of proper order. Contraception does the opposite. It seeks to will dysfunction where proper order already exists, i.e. the properly functioning body. This is why contraceptives as contraception is not “medicine.” It seeks to cause dysfunction for its own sake.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If we are to only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition, we can conclude that drinking one soft drink is as sinful as drinking 100, since the frequency of the sin does not matter.

If we are to only use sex in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction, we can conclude than a single instance of contraception use by a married couple is as sinful as contraceptive use with 20 sex partners, because the frequency of the sin does not matter.

sw85 was saying you can’s justify something as unsinful because it is frequent - not that 1 sin is equal to 100 sins. Your post here doesn’t apply to what he said.

 

[Thinking10]

sw85 was saying you can’s justify something as unsinful because it is frequent - not that 1 sin is equal to 100 sins. Your post here doesn’t apply to what he said.

Are the two statements equivalent?

 

[davidv]

What is the difference between promiscuity and occasional use of contraception by a married couple?

The response does not address my post. Nor does it further the explanation of the OP.

The difference is in degree (frequency, seriousness, etc.) not kind (sin, not sin).

 

[davidv]

Are the two statements equivalent?

They are equivalent and both are incomplete. The problem with both statements is they irrationally separate a single activity from the whole. Moral or immoral acts are acts of persons, not acts of specific functions of those persons.