Unitive and Procreative - But Why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seakelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the whole that the activity is being separated from?
 
davidv said:
What is the difference between well ordered eating and gluttony? Is well order eating sinful? If not, this is an inappropriate analogy.
Click to expand...
The difference between well ordered eating and gluttony is the same as the difference between sometimes using contraception to space births and using contraception to completely cut off a relationship from ever resulting in conception.
 
Thinking10 said:
The difference between well ordered eating and gluttony is the same as the difference between sometimes using contraception to space births and using contraception to completely cut off a relationship from ever resulting in conception.
Click to expand...
No it is not. Well ordered eating is not a sin. Gluttony is. Contraception is a sin in all cases. The analogy fails.
 
Why is it that we are **not **required to only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition (what nutritional value is there in soft drinks?), but we are required to only use sex in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction?
 
On what principle is the belief that contraception is always sinful based? That bodily systems should only be used for their utilitarian purpose? That we should not substitute natural methods of doing anything our bodies can do with artificial methods? If so, why are no other bodily functions restricted to only their utilitarian purpose as sex is?

If it is because we are forbidden to substitute man made ways of doing things for things our bodies can already do, why are no other man made inventions forbidden by the church as is contraception?
 
Thinking10 said:
On what principle is the belief that contraception is always sinful based? That bodily systems should only be used for their utilitarian purpose? That we should not substitute natural methods of doing anything our bodies can do with artificial methods? If so, why are no other bodily functions restricted to only their utilitarian purpose as sex is?

If it is because we are forbidden to substitute man made ways of doing things for things our bodies can already do, why are no other man made inventions forbidden by the church as is contraception?
Click to expand...
Not one principle. Multiple.
  1. God created the human race in his own image
  2. The human race consists of male and female
  3. The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him.
  4. The integrality of the gift of self
  5. Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful
Source: CCC

These principles are explored in great depth in the Theology of the Body.
 
Thinking10 said:
Are the two statements equivalent?
Click to expand...
No. One refers to an argument that if something is done frequently it must therefore not be sinful. The other refers to the magnitude of one sin vs many. They are not the same statement at all.
 
Thinking10 said:
Why is it that we are **not **required to only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition (what nutritional value is there in soft drinks?), but we are required to only use sex in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction?
Click to expand...
We’ve already established that something like bulimia nervosa is an objective evil. But soft drinks have nutritional value (barring some form of gluttony) such as the digestive help from citric acids. You have not discovered a “flaw” in the natural law argument against contraception.
 
davidv said:
Not one principle. Multiple.
  1. God created the human race in his own image
  2. The human race consists of male and female
  3. The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him.
  4. The integrality of the gift of self
  5. Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful
Source: CCC

These principles are explored in great depth in the Theology of the Body.
Click to expand...
Is it wrong to allow couples to maintain physical relations while deliberately avoiding pregnancy until they are prepared for the pregnancy?
 
  1. Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful
Click to expand...
Why is it permissible for a couple to attempt to p(name removed by moderator)oint the time of the month when sex will not result in conception and only have sex within that window? Are they or are they not attempting to prevent conception? It sounds half hearted to say well, yes they are, but at the same time, no, they aren’t trying to avoid conception.

Either they are or they are not attempting to avoid conception. It sounds confusing to try to push NFP as a form of birth control, and at the same time deny that it is a form of birth control.
 
Thinking10 said:
Why is it permissible for a couple to attempt to p(name removed by moderator)oint the time of the month when sex will not result in conception and only have sex within that window? Are they or are they not attempting to prevent conception? It sounds half hearted to say well, yes they are, but at the same time, no, they aren’t trying to avoid conception.

Either they are or they are not attempting to avoid conception. It sounds confusing to try to push NFP as a form of birth control, and at the same time deny that it is a form of birth control.
Click to expand...
NFP is a form of birth control. Not all forms of birth control are illicit. NFP is licit. Do you think the Church demands that every family must try to have as many children as possible?
 
davidv said:
NFP is a form of birth control. Not all forms of birth control are illicit. NFP is licit. Do you think the Church demands that every family must try to have as many children as possible?
Click to expand...
You are saying that a married couple has to try to be procreative, but they aren’t really trying to be procreative.
 
What do people mean when they talk about NFP mistakes and “oops” babies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top