Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

[clem456]

Is having sex in a specific way one’s expression of love towards God?

There are many ways how to express love towards God - for example to visit a sick person in a hospital; showing love towards other people is showing love towards God as well.
There are many ways how to love God and it is not a sin if one does not do all of the things that express love towards God. It’s even physically impossible to do so.

It is love towards God to live according the Natural Moral Law.
I do not see where the Natural Moral Law includes having sex every single time in the specific way.

Please narrow down what you are talking about.
Of course, there are many expressions of love. Love is not = merely sex.
But then you ask about having sex in a specific way. Having sex is one specific way of expressing love.

The natural law is God’s law written on the heart of every person. It is common to every person. You might say, there is an element of “common sense”. So to follow that law is to love God, yes.

Not sure what you want out of that discussion.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Please narrow down what you are talking about.
Of course, there are many expressions of love. Love is not = merely sex.
But then you ask about having sex in a specific way. Having sex is one specific way of expressing love.

The natural law is God’s law written on the heart of every person. It is common to every person. You might say, there is an element of “common sense”. So to follow that law is to love God, yes.

Not sure what you want out of that discussion.

I am talking about the procreative aspect of the marital act.
What is written on the heart of every person is that it is good to procreate, educate and up-bring offspring.

Having said that the definition of the procreative aspect is to have sex in the specific way every time a married couple has sex.
How does this follow from what is written upon person’s heart?

 

[clem456]

I am talking about the procreative aspect of the marital act.
What is written on the heart of every person is that it is good to procreate, educate and up-bring offspring.

Having said that the definition of the procreative aspect is to have sex in the specific way every time a married couple has sex.
How does this follow from what is written upon person’s heart?

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

“discern by reason”. Reason is sensate. It requires us to be open to the world around us, to look, to see, to listen and to hear. Part of the Good News is Christ’s repeated exhortation for us to stop and look at what is revealed.
“Have you not read…”
“Have you not heard…”
“Anyone who has ears should hear…”
“Look at the birds of the field…”

At the core of the Gospel is the invitation to open ourselves to what is revealed, and to give our entire being to sensing it, and using reason in that process.

Here’s the thing:
The Catholic Church does not invent a moral construct in regards to the order of sexuality in human beings. It looks, listens, observes, and uses the common reason available to any person. The Catholic Church says, with Christ,:
“From the beginning…this is how human beings come to be. We are a unity of body and soul. This is who we are and what we look like. We are male, and we are female”. Seeing that sexuality is ordered this way does not mean that sex always results in a child. Human beings do not create children, we pro-create children. Having sex in an ordered way is not a guarantee of new human life. And it does not also mean that ordered to procreation negates the unitive aspect. Pleasure, bonding, etc…all good aspects whether or not a child is the result.

None of this requires belief in Catholicism, or the bible. No decision is required between good and evil to observe that sexuality is ordered to human existence. Without sexuality, we are not here to have a discussion. Catholicism affirms that human existence is something really important and profound, and so the sexual faculty is likewise profound, important, it is sacred.
“:A hammer is not designed to break a window”. It can do it, it looks like the real thing, sort of, but that’s not what it’s for.

This is simply an observation of reality and being.
It is the definition of insanity to look at what is commonly revealed in nature, and not see it and accept it for what it is. It is un-reason-able.

 

[Jaaanosik]

“discern by reason”. Reason is sensate. It requires us to be open to the world around us, to look, to see, to listen and to hear. Part of the Good News is Christ’s repeated exhortation for us to stop and look at what is revealed.
“Have you not read…”
“Have you not heard…”
“Anyone who has ears should hear…”
“Look at the birds of the field…”

At the core of the Gospel is the invitation to open ourselves to what is revealed, and to give our entire being to sensing it, and using reason in that process.

Here’s the thing:
The Catholic Church does not invent a moral construct in regards to the order of sexuality in human beings. It looks, listens, observes, and uses the common reason available to any person. The Catholic Church says, with Christ,:
“From the beginning…this is how human beings come to be. We are a unity of body and soul. This is who we are and what we look like. We are male, and we are female”. Seeing that sexuality is ordered this way does not mean that sex always results in a child. Human beings do not create children, we pro-create children. Having sex in an ordered way is not a guarantee of new human life. And it does not also mean that ordered to procreation negates the unitive aspect. Pleasure, bonding, etc…all good aspects whether or not a child is the result.

None of this requires belief in Catholicism, or the bible. No decision is required between good and evil to observe that sexuality is ordered to human existence. Without sexuality, we are not here to have a discussion. Catholicism affirms that human existence is something really important and profound, and so the sexual faculty is likewise profound, important, it is sacred.
“:A hammer is not designed to break a window”. It can do it, it looks like the real thing, sort of, but that’s not what it’s for.

This is simply an observation of reality and being.
It is the definition of insanity to look at what is commonly revealed in nature, and not see it and accept it for what it is. It is un-reason-able.

I have no idea what you are saying.
How it follows from what you said that a married couple is supposed to have sex in the specific way?

 

[davidv]

I have no idea what you are saying.
How it follows from what you said that a married couple is supposed to have sex in the specific way?

The most direct answer to this question that I know is:
Some specific ways of having sex are immoral, and some are not. One specific way that is immoral is contracepted sex.

It is the Church’s duty to instruct her members on the way to heaven. Immoral sex is not a way to heaven. Therefore the Church instructions include specific ways of sex that are moral.

 

[Rau]

…How it follows from what you said that a married couple is supposed to have sex in the specific way?

Actually, very little is said about the “how”. Very little is said about the “specifics”. Lying, standing, sitting, face to face or otherwise is all open. What is called for is a flesh to flesh Union, ordered to procreation, absent measures intended to defeat conception. Minimal physical restrictions really.

One might say that these really describe the proper use of the sexual facility; other uses being a different kind of act (not “sex”). Thus, not so much “you must have sex this way”, but rather "only use your sexual capacity "to have ‘sex’ ".

 

[Jaaanosik]

The most direct answer to this question that I know is:
Some specific ways of having sex are immoral, and some are not. One specific way that is immoral is contracepted sex.

It is the Church’s duty to instruct her members on the way to heaven. Immoral sex is not a way to heaven. Therefore the Church instructions include specific ways of sex that are moral.

The only difference between NFP and condoms is the technicality how the ‘contraception’ is done.
Women do unnatural things in order to make NFP work.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Actually, very little is said about the “how”. Very little is said about the “specifics”. Lying, standing, sitting, face to face or otherwise is all open. What is called for is a flesh to flesh Union, ordered to procreation, absent measures intended to defeat conception. Minimal physical restrictions really.

One might say that these really describe the proper use of the sexual facility; other uses being a different kind of act (not “sex”). Thus, not so much “you must have sex this way”, but rather "only use your sexual capacity "to have ‘sex’ ".

The marital act has two aspects. Where does the requirement of both of them to be present at the act come from? How the Church came to that conclusion?
It appears it can not be justified from the Natural Moral Law, where does the proper use definition come from?

 

[clem456]

I have no idea what you are saying.
How it follows from what you said that a married couple is supposed to have sex in the specific way?

Well, it is hard to discern exactly what you want to know.
You asked in previous posts about natural law in relation to sexuality. That was the thrust of my post, to talk about natural law.

I think the end point is like this:

The Church does not teach science in regard to sexuality. It observes what is revealed, affirms it, proclaims that it is good and has great value.
Sexuality is ordered to human existence, plain and simple. This ordered-ness is commonly observable in nature.

The argument is “yes but I use mine to do other things and so do others”.
The equipment can certainly be used in other ways, but that is mere utility, not acting in cooperation with God’s fullest design for the equipment.

A mechanic can use a vice-grips to remove a phillips head screw (i’ve done it many times). Is that what a vice grips is designed for? No. Can I use it that way? Yes.

Basically what the agenda for indifferent sexuality is claiming is…
*the sexual faculty of human beings is on a level with tools. *
What contributes to human existence is reduced to utilitarian functions to serve the disconnected whim of the individual. That is not a good thing.

 

[Rau]

The only difference between NFP and condoms is the technicality how the ‘contraception’ is done.
Women do unnatural things in order to make NFP work.

Good grief - you have just redefined contraception to suit yourself! Avoiding a pregnancy by avoiding sex is one thing and morally licit. Corrupting the “sex” is another.

 

[Rau]

The marital act has two aspects. Where does the requirement of both of them to be present at the act come from? How the Church came to that conclusion?
It appears it can not be justified from the Natural Moral Law, where does the proper use definition come from?

I have no idea what you are saying.

 

[Bookcat]

The marital act has two aspects. Where does the requirement of both of them to be present at the act come from?

Huh?

God …reason…the Church…

Tis just the nature of the marital act.

And something was quite clear to even the most uneducated …before the advent of greater popularity of the evil that is contraception. Sin and the social promotion of sin brings starts to dull ones perception of even the natural moral law.

 

[clem456]

There are two aspects but one act in which the two aspects are always present.

The two aspects are not separable, due to the nature of marriage, which is a union of persons ordered to the existence of human life (pro-creation).

There is not one marital act that is procreative but not unitive.
And there is not one marital act that is unitive but not procreative (regardless of whether a child results or not).

…
it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.

 

[Bookcat]

There are two aspects but one act in which the two aspects are always present.

The two aspects are not separable, due to the nature of marriage, which is a union of persons ordered to the existence of human life (pro-creation).

There is not one marital act that is procreative but not unitive.
And there is not one marital act that is unitive but not procreative (regardless of whether a child results or not).

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

495. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.
**
496. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?**

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

Well, it is hard to discern exactly what you want to know.
You asked in previous posts about natural law in relation to sexuality. That was the thrust of my post, to talk about natural law.

I think the end point is like this:

The Church does not teach science in regard to sexuality. It observes what is revealed, affirms it, proclaims that it is good and has great value.
Sexuality is ordered to human existence, plain and simple. This ordered-ness is commonly observable in nature.

The argument is “yes but I use mine to do other things and so do others”.
The equipment can certainly be used in other ways, but that is mere utility, not acting in cooperation with God’s fullest design for the equipment.

A mechanic can use a vice-grips to remove a phillips head screw (i’ve done it many times). Is that what a vice grips is designed for? No. Can I use it that way? Yes.

Basically what the agenda for indifferent sexuality is claiming is…
*the sexual faculty of human beings is on a level with tools. *
What contributes to human existence is reduced to utilitarian functions to serve the disconnected whim of the individual. That is not a good thing.

Good love giving sex that bonds a married couple does not fall to any category you described above.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Good grief - you have just redefined contraception to suit yourself! Avoiding a pregnancy by avoiding sex is one thing and morally licit. Corrupting the “sex” is another.

So doing unnatural things is justified by the end, riiight.

 

[davidv]

So doing unnatural things is justified by the end, riiight.

What does this mean?

What unnatural things are you speaking of?
What ends are you speaking of?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Huh?

God …reason…the Church…

Tis just the nature of the marital act.

And something was quite clear to even the most uneducated …before the advent of greater popularity of the evil that is contraception. Sin and the social promotion of sin brings starts to dull ones perception of even the natural moral law.

NFP and condoms have the same purpose - to avoid conception.
One is OK the other not. I’d like to see that reasoning how it was concluded.

 

[Rau]

So doing unnatural things is justified by the end, riiight.

Define unnatural! Nothing is justified by the end. Many acts don’t require justification - there is no standing prohibition on action! I tapped on the screen of an iPhone just now. Is this unnatural? How was it justified? Did it require justification?

 

[Jaaanosik]

What does this mean?

What unnatural things are you speaking of?
What ends are you speaking of?

How women measure temperature ‘down there’ in order to make NFP work. Are the periods any disease? A healthy person measures temperature only when getting sick and definitely not between the legs. That’s not natural.