What does "contrary to its purpose" mean

[mcliffor]

If hair serves to keep us warm and legs are made for mobility, then it would seem that shaving or dancing would both be mortal sins in the same way using contraception is. But why aren’t they? What’s the difference between using God’s gifts for a different purpose and in a way that is contrary to its purpose?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

If hair serves to keep us warm and legs are made for mobility, then it would seem that shaving or dancing would both be mortal sins in the same way using contraception is. But why aren’t they? What’s the difference between using God’s gifts for a different purpose and in a way that is contrary to its purpose?

Hi!

Shaving one’s legs or dancing are not contrary to the natural law nor do they attempt to thwart God’s will.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[batteddy]

The legs and hair are clearly not for merely a few purposes, nor is the mouth, hands etc.

One leg can be used to scratch another leg, kick someone, etc. It clearly isn’t intended just for walking. Even if we flew…we might have legs (like some birds) to help us sit, or to pick stuff up with our teeth, to defend ourselves in the air. We can’t say, “the legs would not exist if it weren’t for walking.”

Hair obviously isnt just to keep us warm. It provides protection for our skin from the sun and insects, plays a role in sexual attraction, etc.

The mouth not only eats, but talks, licks stamps, etc.

The hands are clearly multi-purpose.

With these things…there is no one purpose which we can say “well…sure there are other uses, but if it wasn’t for this one thing…we wouldn’t have them in the first place.”

Even if we didn’t eat, we might have a mouth still…for vocalizing.
Even if we didn’t walk, we might still have legs…for kicking (in the air).

But with the genitals, even if you can think of other uses, it is clear that if there was no sex…there would be no genitals. One is tied up indissolubly with the other. If we didn’t have babies…there would be no womb. If we didn’t need sperm to reproduce, there would be no testicles.

There weren’t several advantages naturally conferred by the genitals…there was one: sexual reproduction . And if it hadn’t been for that, the genitals would never have evolved/been made.

A similar system is the gastrointestinal: it is for ingesting things. There is no reason for it’s existence other than taking in substances to help the body.

It’s more about the thing’s raison d’etre.

I don’t think we can say, “The legs exist for walking.” That is clearly a major purpose, but we can imagine them existing for uses other than walking. We might still have them even if we didn’t walk, they might still be advantageous and selected for.

But I think it is quite clear “The reproductive organs exist to reproduce” and wouldn’t otherwise.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Wow! That was VERY will said!

In Christ,
Nancy

The legs and hair are clearly not for merely a few purposes, nor is the mouth, hands etc.

One leg can be used to scratch another leg, kick someone, etc. It clearly isn’t intended just for walking. Even if we flew…we might have legs (like some birds) to help us sit, or to pick stuff up with our teeth, to defend ourselves in the air. We can’t say, “the legs would not exist if it weren’t for walking.”

Hair obviously isnt just to keep us warm. It provides protection for our skin from the sun and insects, plays a role in sexual attraction, etc.

The mouth not only eats, but talks, licks stamps, etc.

The hands are clearly multi-purpose.

With these things…there is no one purpose which we can say “well…sure there are other uses, but if it wasn’t for this one thing…we wouldn’t have them in the first place.”

Even if we didn’t eat, we might have a mouth still…for vocalizing.
Even if we didn’t walk, we might still have legs…for kicking (in the air).

But with the genitals, even if you can think of other uses, it is clear that if there was no sex…there would be no genitals. One is tied up indissolubly with the other. If we didn’t have babies…there would be no womb. If we didn’t need sperm to reproduce, there would be no testicles.

There weren’t several advantages naturally conferred by the genitals…there was one: sexual reproduction . And if it hadn’t been for that, the genitals would never have evolved/been made.

A similar system is the gastrointestinal: it is for ingesting things. There is no reason for it’s existence other than taking in substances to help the body.

It’s more about the thing’s raison d’etre.

I don’t think we can say, “The legs exist for walking.” That is clearly a major purpose, but we can imagine them existing for uses other than walking. We might still have them even if we didn’t walk, they might still be advantageous and selected for.

But I think it is quite clear “The reproductive organs exist to reproduce” and wouldn’t otherwise.

 

[DadOf11]

If hair serves to keep us warm and legs are made for mobility, then it would seem that shaving or dancing would both be mortal sins in the same way using contraception is. But why aren’t they? What’s the difference between using God’s gifts for a different purpose and in a way that is contrary to its purpose?

Sorry MCLiffor - I’m not sure I understand what you are looking for here. Seems like such a drastic comparision that I’m not even sure if you would buy a different rational - but let me take a slightly different direction than the previous posters.

EVERYTHING that God gave us can be used morally - and immorally - based upon consequences and our acts. As was said - legs serve a purpose - some morally OK - some neutral - and I’m sure we can think of ways in which we could use our legs immorally - “against God’s purposes”. I could kick someone to death for instance. Not sure it is “the legs” fault - but to use your reasoning - we could “attribute” it to the legs - and they would be doing an immoral act.

The same goes with our fertility. The church, in its great wisdom, tells us how to use our fertility within moral bounds - and tells us which ways we can use it that would be immoral for us. The same goes for all our actions - one way or the other. It all depends upon us - and our actions.

Conconct any set of “analogies” you want - but it comes down to us - our moral code of behavior - and how well we act upon it. It is very simple - and trying to “outthink” the church typically just gets us into trouble!

God Bless,
DadOf11

 

[mcliffor]

But it’s very hard to convince a group of non-catholics of this. My trouble is that the natural law is supposed to be intelligible to everyone, not just Catholics, but justifying it without falling back on “because the Church says so” is hard to do.

 

[DailyBread]

Dear McCliffor,
I can understand you cunundrum of sorts. First, I think previous posts have handled this well on the issue of dancing. For the purpose of hair, it’s main function, that of warmth (in sexual response its just part of sympathetic general response, but not intrinsic to it), but we have many ways of regulating warmth, from blood flow regulation, to muscle movement (ie shiver) to adding or removing layers of clothing. By cutting hair typically, we are probably not endangering the loss of an intrinsic good of warmth which is necessary for life (though during the ice age, i dont think shaving your head would be a good idea). We also use veins to bypass coronary arteries to achieve the good of blood flow to the heart which is a good too.
What I am saying is this, natural law orders things be used to achieve intrinsic goods of the person and not to harm intrinsic goods of the person and maintain proper natural function (by cutting hair in this case, i dont think people have prevented their ability for proper warmth regulation). Since I believe natural law is most challenged in the area of sexual ethics we can see it in this light:
Fertility is an intrinsic good of the human designed to perpetuate the spieces. An act which makes or turns the genitals infertile is wrong because you are inhibiting an intrinsic good of the speices, that of fertility when one is using such organs during some type of sexual act. IE birth control prevents the only way of perpetuating the spieces from occuring, that of uncontracepted intercourse (mutual masturbation which does not lead to completion of the act would fall under this category since it is making use of genitals in such a way as to inhibit its fertile purpose which is its primary good).
Now ones arguement maybe, well we have in vitro fertilization so fertility is not the sole way of achieving the intrinsic good of fertility just like removing hair doesnt impede the good of warmth regulation. Here is the reason why that is wrong according to natural law: By producing an offspring seperate from the genital act the intrinsic good of the dignified creation of the individual is lost since all are made in his image and likeness, that creation must be mimicked here on earth. God the son is eternally begotten from the father in a complete giving of self through the Spirit and likewise the Son to the father through the spirit. Their beingness is dependent upon the complete emptying of oneself to the other in a loving embrace and the holy spirit is the eternal fruit of that union. Likewise in the creation of the person, one must be made in a similar way, by a complete loving embrace of husband and wife. Artificial Reproduction attacks that intrinsic good and therefore is contrary to natural law since natural law is a reflection of God himself and his beingness. Hence all are meant to be created in the sexual embrace of husband and wife.

Hope that helps!
For the Greater Glory of God!