Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaaanosik said:
Your post is not about the definition of the procreative aspect.
This definition is as physical as it gets.
Is there any other moral teaching this physical?

The moral teaching is always in the context of the Natural Moral Law - it is good to live, it is good to procreate and to educate offspring, it is good to live in a society, it is good to pursue knowledge and truth.

The Church teaches it is a sin to do anything that threatens life under ordinary circustances - for example to eat too much. This is in the context of the Natural Moral Law.
The Church does not teach the physicality - how to eat and how much to eat.
… but the Church teaches how to have sex.

Again, is there any other moral teaching linked to the physicality this way?
Click to expand...
The moral reality is the opposite of what you assert as physicalism.
It’s the same physical form and physical act in both cases. So, physicalism would make a moral equivalence between the two due to their identical form.
An act is subject to morality because we are free to choose.

And you are right. The Church does not teach how to have sex. The Church observes how sex is done. Very simple observation of revealed nature.
 
clem456 said:
The moral reality is the opposite of what you assert as physicalism.
It’s the same physical form and physical act in both cases. So, physicalism would make a moral equivalence between the two due to their identical form.
An act is subject to morality because we are free to choose.

And you are right. The Church does not teach how to have sex. The Church observes how sex is done. Very simple observation of revealed nature.
Click to expand...
It appears you misunderstood what I am saying.
The Church DOES teach how to have sex. The definition of procreative sex stands on the physicality how the sex is done.
 
Jaaanosik said:
This definition is as physical as it gets.
Click to expand...
Nope. The point was quite the opposite.

The post was about if Catholic Morality is some “physicalism” which it is not. As one can see the physical acts there are the same.

But the moral realities are the difference between death and life.
 
Jaaanosik said:
The definition of procreative sex stands on the physicality how the sex is done.
Click to expand...
Sure - the physical is involved in the martial act. By nature of the act is one that is about the self gift of the spouses, the communion of the persons and their openness to life.

Something that is both spiritual and physical.

We embodies spirits - they body is rather involved in moral actions.
 
Jaaanosik said:
It appears you misunderstood what I am saying.
The Church DOES teach how to have sex. The definition of procreative sex stands on the physicality how the sex is done.
Click to expand...
I have been Catholic my whole life. And your bolded statement above has taken me by complete surprise.

Bear with me please.
Can you specifically reference me where “the Catholic Church teaches how to have sex”?
In official documents…not the tangential writings of any particular Catholic.

Where does the Church teach us how human beings have sex?
 
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

Such is not to be reduced to “physicality” though yes like much that is human the physical is involved. But so is the spirit. We are embodied spirits. Human Persons. Marriage and thus the martial act (the only authentic meaning of the human sex act).
 
Bookcat said:
Sure - the physical is involved in the martial act. By nature of the act is one that is about the self gift of the spouses, the communion of the persons and their openness to life.

Something that is both spiritual and physical.

We embodies spirits - they body is rather involved in moral actions.
Click to expand...
Is it a sin to have a glass of wine every single time we drink it?
Think in the context of the Natural Moral Law. The answer is no. It would be a sin only when it’s too much.

A married couple with multiple children fulfilled the Natural Moral Law as being procreative but the Church teaches they are supposed to have sex every single time in the specific way.
Why? How does it relate to the Natural Moral Law when they already fulfilled it?
Going by your logic a couple practicing NFP with one child is more open to file than a couple with four children and using condoms. Right?

This emphasis on the specific way of having sex and missing the context of the Natural Moral Law is so wrong…
 
Jaaanosik said:
Is it a sin to have a glass of wine every single time we drink it?
Think in the context of the Natural Moral Law. The answer is no. It would be a sin only when it’s too much.
Click to expand...
Your comparing grapes and persons.

The misuse of wine is yes sinful. The misuse of human sexuality is sinful.

When used in a ordered way wine is good. Human sexuality when it is the marital act as the marital act is to be according to its meaning etc - is good. When human sexuality is misused - it is sinful.
Jaaanosik said:
A married couple with multiple children fulfilled the Natural Moral Law as being procreative but the Church teaches they are supposed to have sex every single time in the specific way.
Why? How does it relate to the Natural Moral Law when they already fulfilled it?
Click to expand...
They have not fulfilled it. For such is not something that is “fulfilled” in some final way during life. For one the Natural Moral Law and Divine Revelation do not cease.

Nor does the meaning of the marital act. The marital act by must us be well the marital act - unitive and open to life.
 
Bookcat said:
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

Such is not to be reduced to “physicality” though yes like much that is human the physical is involved. But so is the spirit. We are embodied spirits. Human Persons. Marriage and thus the martial act (the only authentic meaning of the human sex act).
Click to expand...
 
Bookcat said:
Your comparing grapes and persons.

The misuse of wine is yes sinful. The misuse of human sexuality is sinful.

When used in a ordered way wine is good. Human sexuality when it is the marital act as the marital act is to be according to its meaning etc - is good. When human sexuality is misused - it is sinful.

They have not fulfilled it. For such is not something that is “fulfilled” in some final way during life. For one the Natural Moral Law and Divine Revelation do not cease.

Nor does the meaning of the marital act. The marital act by must us be well the marital act - unitive and open to life.
Click to expand...
Is love giving sex of a married couple sinful?

It’s between the couple and God. If after praying the couple thinks the number of children they have is enough then that’s it. They might revisit it later but it’s between them and God how they feel, whether they fulfilled it or not. Every couple is different in regards to how many children they would have.

It is not your call to say if they fulfilled it or not - it’s an arrogant statement.
 
Jaaanosik said:
Is love giving sex of a married couple sinful?

It’s between the couple and God. If after praying the couple thinks the number of children they have is enough then that’s it. They might revisit it later but it’s between them and God how they feel, whether they fulfilled it or not. Every couple is different in regards to how many children they would have.

It is not your call to say if they fulfilled it or not - it’s an arrogant statement.
Click to expand...
You’re misrepresenting or misunderstanding what’s being said.

A couple is not required to produce a child every time they have sex. That would be an impossibility, would it not? Sex that does not result in a child is not somehow sinful.

Being ordered to procreation is not the same thing as a new child coming into being as a fruit of the act.
 
Jaaanosik said:
It’s between the couple and God. If after praying the couple thinks the number of children they have is enough then that’s it. They might revisit it later but it’s between them and God how they feel, whether they fulfilled it or not. Every couple is different in regards to how many children they would have.

It is not your call to say if they fulfilled it or not - it’s an arrogant statement.
Click to expand...
God has made that call…

It is not arrogance but truth.

Yes of course - there can be serious reasons why a couple may need to not have another child or space the children - yes of course. And such would be something that couple would need to discern before God. And then moral means would need to be used to avoid a new conception (periodic continence…NFP).
 
clem456 said:
You’re misrepresenting or misunderstanding what’s being said.

A couple is not required to produce a child every time they have sex. That would be an impossibility, would it not? Sex that does not result in a child is not somehow sinful.

Being ordered to procreation is not the same thing as a new child coming into being as a fruit of the act.
Click to expand...
I understand very well what’s being said.
The discussion is about how a specific way of having sex is related to the Natural Moral Law.
The Natural Law says it’s good to procreate and up-bring offspring.
Where does it say how to have sex every single time? It does not!
 
From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?**

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
 
Jaaanosik said:
I understand very well what’s being said.
The discussion is about how a specific way of having sex is related to the Natural Moral Law.
The Natural Law says it’s good to procreate and up-bring offspring.
Where does it say how to have sex every single time? It does not!
Click to expand...
It’s really not clear what you’re talking about.

You reference the Natural Moral Law. You’ve also referenced Catholic teaching.

What do you mean when you ask:
Where does it say how to have sex every single time?
Click to expand...
What or who is the “it” you are talking about, and how would that “it” say what you are asking about.

I am sorry but your question is vague and hard to answer.
 
catholic1seeks said:
By the killing example, killing is a physical act. What makes it wrong are specific intentions and circumstances.

That is why I compare it to sexual activity. Sexual acts are identified physically as well; however, no matter the intentions or circumstances, if they are not ordered to life, they are evil.
Click to expand...
Yes, sex is moral when the intention is to be unitive and procreative within marriage.

If I my intentions are disordered, perhaps simply trying to justify it based on love, but interfere with the ends of sex, then that is immoral. It’s not simply act based. If I’m with my wife, and some freak accident happens and for whatever reason the end isn’t accomplished “correctly,” I haven’t committed a sin or pursued disordered intentions. The point is that my choices and intentions about my actions are in accordance with God’s will for us. Love is not enough of a justification for sex.

Likewise with self defense, murder, and killing. Love is not an excuse for killing. Neither are a lot of other good intentions or feelings.

When we do kill, it must be justified with appropriate reasons and not by lesser goods in disregard to higher goods about the dignity of the human person and the value of life.
 
clem456 said:
There are many expressions of love, but you have changed the subject.
🤷
This is what you asked:

You asked a question about sexuality, not how many expressions of love their are.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top