Why does every sex act have to be procreative, but not unitive?

[Debora123]

I kind of understand where you guys are coming from, but I have also spent some years studying Aristotle and St. Thomas and honestly, the teaching makes much more sense in that context. Its kind of hard for me to explain, but when you understand the way these two great thinkers thought it seems less legalistic and more just like a consistent and necessary conclusion. And since Church teaching and philosophy of reality is really essentially based on this philosophy of reality it makes sense that the Church would view this as a necessary and consistent conclusion. I don’t know if that really helps you guys at all, but its definitely what I have found to be true.

Thanks Wanderer. I have heard many different explanations from many different people here on CAF… and of course, I know the CCC and have read West and Bonacci, etc etc.

Perhaps it truly is a deeper, more philosophical thing, as you say.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Oh trust me, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any rules. And I don’t think that’s what the OP is saying either. And of course, I believe that marriage and sex are sacred and that life is sacred.

As I posted on the last page, I just struggle to make sense of some of the little technicalities, that’s all.

But it’s not little technicalities.
It’s the process in which a new eternal soul is created… it shouldn’t be “mocked” by pretending it isn’t divinely inspired.

 

[Debora123]

But it’s not little technicalities.
It’s the process in which a new eternal soul is created… it shouldn’t be “mocked” by pretending it isn’t divinely inspired.

I was referring to technicalities such as always having to finish inside with no condom on, even if a pregnancy is impossible anyway. Things like that.

I totally understand/agree that a marriage must be open to life and that we need to have just reasons to avoid/postpone pregnancy.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If you read Germain Grizes,(the work I mentioned in my pp’s) he explains Church teaching very well.

It’s available on line.

 

[EasterJoy]

…And this right here is a fraction of the reason why I personally struggle with understanding the Church’s black and white, intrinsic teaching on “contraception.” I feel like it is really the only Church teaching that has holes like this all over the place, and it is the only Church teaching that leaves me aching for more clarity.

I understand why hormonal birth control is wrong, as it causes abortions and is detrimental to a woman’s body.
I understand why marriages as a whole should be open to life.
I understand why completely replacing intercourse with oral sex, for example, is wrong.
I understand why avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons is wrong.

I DO NOT understand why every single sexual encounter MUST finish with the man inside the woman with no condom every single time no matter who what why where when and how.

To me it just comes off as legalistic, quite honestly, and makes me wonder if perhaps the Church is playing it safe a little bit… just to be sure. After all, it is our pope’s duty to get Because I can definitely see how using a condom and/or finishing outside the woman could be wrong… it just doesn’t make sense that it always always always always is.

Nonetheless, I understand this is what the Church teaches regardless and I don’t wish to “lead anyone astray.” If anyone asks me what Church teaching is on the matter, I always tell them exactly what it is even though I may struggle to agree with it myself.

Well, how often is it right to engage in bulima? I mean, you can see why it is wrong to have a habit of eating food with the intention of barfing it up later so that you get no calories, but do you see also why it is always always always wrong? When it is not wrong to have your stomach pumped, it is because there is a medical reason that does not have the intention of separating the pleasure of eating with nutrition. The pumping of your stomach is done for a medical reason with loss of the calories as an unintended side effect. But to eat food and swallow it with the idea of denying food to your stomach is to distort the action of eating itself.

The idea is that contraception, like bulima, is a disordered attempt to separate two aspects intended to be part of one act. It is in the nature of the act for the man to achieve climax during coitus, not at some other time or by some other means. The act of coitus is changed when climax is not the intended goal.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I was referring to technicalities such as always having to finish inside with no condom on, even if a pregnancy is impossible anyway. Things like that.

I totally understand/agree that a marriage must be open to life and that we need to have just reasons to avoid/postpone pregnancy.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about too…

 

[Debora123]

Well, how often is it right to engage in bulima? I mean, you can see why it is wrong to have a habit of eating food with the intention of barfing it up later so that you get no calories, but do you see also why it is always always always wrong? When it is not wrong to have your stomach pumped, it is because there is a medical reason that does not have the intention of separating the pleasure of eating with nutrition. The pumping of your stomach is done for a medical reason with loss of the calories as an unintended side effect. But to eat food and swallow it with the idea of denying food to your stomach is to distort the action of eating itself.

Well, that’s the thing though… bulimia is the condition where you constantly make yourself throw up for the sake of losing weight. I can understand why that is always wrong. But in the case where you ate something that’s making you feel sick, it is not sinful to put your finger in your mouth to make yourself throw up. Making yourself throw up is not intrinsically wrong.

The idea is that contraception, like bulima, is a disordered attempt to separate two aspects intended to be part of one act. It is in the nature of the act for the man to achieve climax during coitus, not at some other time or by some other means. The act of coitus is changed when climax is not the intended goal.

Honestly, I don’t understand this analogy either. I have heard it used several times.

So we eat for nutritious purposes, right? So why isn’t it wrong to use our digestive system for things like Soda, beer, and chewing gum? Of course, it is wrong if we do it too much and/or do it in inappropriate times, but it isn’t intrinsically wrong.

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be arguing with you or anything. I know you’re right, I know it’s against Church teaching and I’m no trying to argue otherwise. I’m just pointing out the holes I see.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well, that’s the thing though… bulimia is the condition where you constantly make yourself throw up for the sake of losing weight. I can understand why that is always wrong. But in the case where you ate something that’s making you feel sick, it is not sinful to put your finger in your mouth to make yourself throw up. Making yourself throw up is not intrinsically wrong.

Honestly, I don’t understand this analogy either. I have heard it used several times.

So we eat for nutritious purposes, right? So why isn’t it wrong to use our digestive system for things like Soda, beer, and chewing gum? Of course, it is wrong if we do it too much and/or do it in inappropriate times, but it isn’t intrinsically wrong.

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be arguing with you or anything. I know you’re right, I know it’s against Church teaching and I’m no trying to argue otherwise. I’m just pointing out the holes I see.

If you read Germain Grizes,(the work I mentioned in my pp’s) he explains Church teaching very well.

It’s available on line.

 

[thewanderer]

Thanks Wanderer. I have heard many different explanations from many different people here on CAF… and of course, I know the CCC and have read West and Bonacci, etc etc.

Perhaps it truly is a deeper, more philosophical thing, as you say.

I don’t mean to sound as if I have some great philosophical knowledge that others don’t. I definitely still struggle to understand all the nuances and reasons behind this teaching, it is a confusing and difficult teaching, but after studying those two it somehow makes more sense to me, even though I still do not fully understand it. I think it is absolutely true that many Catholics give insufficient and incomplete explanations of this teaching as though it were the compete and sufficient explanation and that causes many people to think it is an incomprehensible and illogical teaching. But I think that it is one of those things that people need to follow partly from obedience, which is a virtue, hard as that is for us in America to accept. We like our independance way too much.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, that’s the thing though… bulimia is the condition where you constantly make yourself throw up for the sake of losing weight. I can understand why that is always wrong. But in the case where you ate something that’s making you feel sick, it is not sinful to put your finger in your mouth to make yourself throw up. Making yourself throw up is not intrinsically wrong.

Honestly, I don’t understand this analogy either. I have heard it used several times.

So we eat for nutritious purposes, right? So why isn’t it wrong to use our digestive system for things like Soda, beer, and chewing gum? Of course, it is wrong if we do it too much and/or do it in inappropriate times, but it isn’t intrinsically wrong.

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be arguing with you or anything. I know you’re right, I know it’s against Church teaching and I’m no trying to argue otherwise. I’m just pointing out the holes I see.

Well, first of all, all analogies break down eventually, because there aren’t different situations that are entirely parallel. That is to be expected. When an analogy doesn’t work for you, it is OK to ditch it.

The difference between drinking beer and using contraception is that beer is a real food, consumed in the normal way, and with the normal consequences of consuming it accepted. Now remember, it is not forbidden to take a medication which has a contraceptive side-effect. Provided a non-contraceptive alternative isn’t available, that is OK. So whether we’re talking about inducing vomiting or using a medication or device with a contraceptive effect, the question is of course: What is the primary reason we’re doing this? If we’re inducing vomiting or taking contraceptive medications for health reasons, then that is different than doing it with the primary purpose of distorting an act so as to separate the act from a normal consequence that is part of its raison d’être.

Intending to swallow so that food is available in the body for digestion is part of the reason for being of eating in the first place. Intending to reach climax in a way that normally might result in procreation is part of the reason for engaging in marital relations. If the act is performed in a way that circumvents the normally intended goal that is in fact the reason the act was created by God in the first place, the nature of the act itself is intrinsically changed. That is why this is an “all the time” thing: that is, because when the act is done for different reasons, it becomes a very different act.

 

[Debora123]

Thank you Mary Gail.

Will investigate.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you Mary Gail.

Will investigate.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t mean to sound as if I have some great philosophical knowledge that others don’t. I definitely still struggle to understand all the nuances and reasons behind this teaching, it is a confusing and difficult teaching, but after studying those two it somehow makes more sense to me, even though I still do not fully understand it. I think it is absolutely true that many Catholics give insufficient and incomplete explanations of this teaching as though it were the compete and sufficient explanation and that causes many people to think it is an incomprehensible and illogical teaching. But I think that it is one of those things that people need to follow partly from obedience, which is a virtue, hard as that is for us in America to accept. We like our independance way too much.

Thank you for understanding/sympathizing with my struggles.

Though I must say, the very fact that it’s such a complicated issue is another thing that eats at me. All the other Church teachings make sense, you know? They make sense in every way, and they can be explained and looked at from a logical perspective. So the fact that this one is so out there is just another factor that causes me to doubt, because it isn’t consistent with the other teachings which are all very logical and easy to understand. I mean, even you, who have said you’ve studied the issue for years and read philosophical works, admit to still having a difficult time understanding it fully.

Usually it really does just boil down to mere obedience, as you mentioned at the end of your post there. As someone who has been married for a couple years now, I do find it difficult to obey this teaching without feeling bitter about the whole thing, since I don’t understand it and since it does create pressure in our sex life. I would find it much easier to obey it in good spirits if I understood it.

Thanks again.

 

[manualman]

Well, that’s the thing though… bulimia is the condition where you constantly make yourself throw up for the sake of losing weight. I can understand why that is always wrong. But in the case where you ate something that’s making you feel sick, it is not sinful to put your finger in your mouth to make yourself throw up. Making yourself throw up is not intrinsically wrong.

You’re closer than you might think. For instance, in cases where a woman has been raped, it is permissible in catholic moral theology for her to take actions afterwards to attempt to prevent the sperm from fertilizing her egg. She can use spermicidal creams and (if the science turns out to be correct that it’s not abortive) can take Plan B to prevent ovulation afterwards.

Unlike marital relations, a rape vicitim IS analogous to someone who has eaten something poisonous and has a legitimate moral reason to vomit it up. The poisoned person isn’t trying to dissociate the pleasure of eating with the nutritional outcome. And the rape victim certainly has NO obligation to any sort of “bond” with her attacker. But one cannot compare one’s husband’s seed with poison unless there is something wrong with the relationship.

See the difference?

 

[thewanderer]

Thank you for understanding/sympathizing with my struggles.

Though I must say, the very fact that it’s such a complicated issue is another thing that eats at me. All the other Church teachings make sense, you know? They make sense in every way, and they can be explained and looked at from a logical perspective. So the fact that this one is so out there is just another factor that causes me to doubt, because it isn’t consistent with the other teachings which are all very logical and easy to understand. I mean, even you, who have said you’ve studied the issue for years and read philosophical works, admit to still having a difficult time understanding it fully.

Usually it really does just boil down to mere obedience, as you mentioned at the end of your post there. As someone who has been married for a couple years now, I do find it difficult to obey this teaching without feeling bitter about the whole thing, since I don’t understand it and since it does create pressure in our sex life. I would find it much easier to obey it in good spirits if I understood it.

Thanks again.

haha, well, I used to think I understood it… but then I heard one person bring up an objection which just kind of nags at me… I think the analogy to bulimia is an excellent analogy. It all has to do with avoiding disordering your natural functions. And that all makes sense to me and seems perfectly logical except that someone brought up the fact that reasoning should also lead to the conclusion that it is wrong to wear earplugs or put on a blindfold… and I don’t see a way out of that conclusion. The teachings are logical and consistent, but they also lead to a conclusion which I find very hard to accept as true, so I am once again stuck trying to better understand it all, to find out what I’m missing in my understanding.

 

[Debora123]

haha, well, I used to think I understood it… but then I heard one person bring up an objection which just kind of nags at me… I think the analogy to bulimia is an excellent analogy. It all has to do with avoiding disordering your natural functions.** And that all makes sense to me and seems perfectly logical except that someone brought up the fact that reasoning should also lead to the conclusion that it is wrong to wear earplugs or put on a blindfold… and I don’t see a way out of that conclusion.** The teachings are logical and consistent, but they also lead to a conclusion which I find very hard to accept as true, so I am once again stuck trying to better understand it all, to find out what I’m missing in my understanding.

Yes, and not only ear plugs and blindfolds either, but there are a lot of other ways that we “disrupt the natural function” and doing those things isn’t intrinsically evil. Bulimia is a violent, unhealthy, abusive thing to do to a body for the mere sake of looking good… and to me, that’s why it’s wrong. Not necessarily solely because of any objective “disruption.” Anorexia is wrong for the same reasons, and there’s no disruption going on there.

But who am I to say. I’m just an average girl trying to make sense of a crazy world.

You probably already know this, but I’m going to give you the advice anyway - DO NOT go into your marriage thinking NFP is going to be this wonderful, fun, bonding thing that actually makes your sex life more exciting. This is what I was always told about NFP before I got married, and so I was highly disappointed and felt lied to when NFP actually did the opposite for us. NFP is hard and stressful, and at least for me it took away the spontaneity of sex and put pressure on the act.

If I had known the reality of it going in, perhaps I would have been prepared and wouldn’t have been left with such a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, and not only ear plugs and blindfolds either, but there are a lot of other ways that we “disrupt the natural function” and doing those things isn’t intrinsically evil. Bulimia is a violent, unhealthy, abusive thing to do to a body for the mere sake of looking good… and to me, that’s why it’s wrong. Not necessarily solely because of any objective “disruption.”

But who am I to say. I’m just an average girl trying to make sense of a crazy world.

You probably already know this, but I’m going to give you the advice anyway - DO NOT go into your marriage thinking NFP is going to be this wonderful, fun, bonding thing that actually makes your sex life more exciting. This is what I was always told about NFP before I got married, and so I was highly disappointed and felt lied to when NFP actually did the opposite for us. NFP is hard and stressful, and at least for me it took away the spontaneity of sex and put pressure on the act.

If I had known the reality of it going in, perhaps I would have been prepared and wouldn’t have been left with such a bad taste in my mouth.

See, I guess the whole idea of the natural order and the importance and goodness of that and so the wrongness of destroying that order makes more sense to me from studying Aristotle and St. Thomas, which is, I think, why I do not have as much of a problem with this teaching as you do. And, I guess thinking about it, using earplugs/blindfolds/sunglasses etc would be perfectly moral so long as it is for health reasons (avoiding damaging sight/hearing etc) The question comes in if it is for other purposes, just to get some peace and quiet, or to make it easier to sleep. I guess I’m still trying to figure out whether those would count as a medical reason or not. If they do count as a medical reason, then I think my issue would be resolved… I’m just not sure yet whether or not they can be.

And don’t worry, I’m not about to go in thinking NFP will be easy or fun. I can definitely see how that kind of thinking could lead to a very bad taste about NFP. Thats another thing us Catholics need to fix, stop trying to get people to follow NFP by painting it out to be all fun and roses, because otherwise, when people find out it is difficult, they are going to feel deceived and give up on it.

 

[Debora123]

See, I guess the whole idea of the natural order and the importance and goodness of that and so the wrongness of destroying that order makes more sense to me from studying Aristotle and St. Thomas, which is, I think, why I do not have as much of a problem with this teaching as you do. And, I guess thinking about it, using earplugs/blindfolds/sunglasses etc would be perfectly moral so long as it is for health reasons (avoiding damaging sight/hearing etc) The question comes in if it is for other purposes, just to get some peace and quiet, or to make it easier to sleep. I guess I’m still trying to figure out whether those would count as a medical reason or not. If they do count as a medical reason, then I think my issue would be resolved… I’m just not sure yet whether or not they can be.

I see where you’re getting at and I think I’m with you there.

Imagine this scenario:

A woman, who has been highly allergic to her husband’s seamen to the point of being almost impossible to have sex gets a hysterectomy due to potentially dangerous growths. Not having been able to be intimate for their entire marriage has naturally caused a huge strain on their marriage and thus their well being. Not because they are sex crazed animals who only care about sex, but because sex is a normal part of a healthy marriage, and not being able to share that with your spouse is very sad and frustrating and difficult.

So, anyhow, now that the woman has had a hysterectomy, the potential for a child is not there… and if they were to use a condom as a way to be able to be intimate and hopefully mend the tension in their marriage, does this qualify as therapeutic purpose? Much like a blind fold for some peace would qualify as a therapeutic purpose?

Or better yet, if using a condom/finishing outside the woman and wearing a blindfold are parallel, then wouldn’t it make sense that wearing a blindfold should also be intrinsically evil unless you are using it to cure a disease? (such as taking the pill for health reasons)

 

[manualman]

Eating reasonably healthy and getting enough excercise aren’t always fun and exciting either. But, like maintaining properly ordered sexual behaviors, these things are crucial to human thriving.

I think it’s an enormously instructive fact that every single nation and culture on earth in which contraception has been accepted as morally good or at least morally neutral for more than 15 years now has a negative total fertility rate. They don’t have enough babies anymore to even replace their numbers. That’s precisely the sort of self-destructive outcome one would predict if, in fact, contraception were a violation of God’s design for a healthy and thriving humanity.

Btw, I agree that it’s a disservice to tell couples that NFP will enhance their marriage. Using NFP to avoid kids is a burden and a chore. It’s maitaining God’s design for a wholistic human sexuality that enhances and blesses marriages. NFP is merely a way to do that when circumstances necessitate avoiding conception. It’s hard work and it’s supposed to be. That difficulty of practice is why NFP people tend to go back towards considering more kids while contracepting people tend to go right on contracepting. In other words, it’s NOT a cumbersome contraception practice, it’s something substantially different.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, and not only ear plugs and blindfolds either, but there are a lot of other ways that we “disrupt the natural function” and doing those things isn’t intrinsically evil. Bulimia is a violent, unhealthy, abusive thing to do to a body for the mere sake of looking good… and to me, that’s why it’s wrong. Not necessarily solely because of any objective “disruption.” Anorexia is wrong for the same reasons, and there’s no disruption going on there.

But who am I to say. I’m just an average girl trying to make sense of a crazy world.

You probably already know this, but I’m going to give you the advice anyway - DO NOT go into your marriage thinking NFP is going to be this wonderful, fun, bonding thing that actually makes your sex life more exciting. This is what I was always told about NFP before I got married, and so I was highly disappointed and felt lied to when NFP actually did the opposite for us. NFP is hard and stressful, and at least for me it took away the spontaneity of sex and put pressure on the act.

If I had known the reality of it going in, perhaps I would have been prepared and wouldn’t have been left with such a bad taste in my mouth.

It could be said by the same token “DO NOT go into your marriage thinking marriage is going to be this wonderful, fun, bonding thing that actually makes your life more exciting”. Sometimes it is all of that, but sometimes it isn’t, and you get to do what you get to do no matter what you get. Yet when people talk about marriage as a commitment and an obligation and something hard, they’re criticized for being too negative! Which is worse, to be open about the possible downside that is coming or to purposefully downplay that because some couples find that it is anything but hard and boring or anything difficult?

As for understanding it, I remember a language teacher relating with some frustration a student who complained bitterly whenever there were exceptions to what the student had come to expect were the “rules” for that language–in this language, for instance, a neuter plural noun takes a singular verb instead of a plural verb, that kind of thing. The student asked how he was supposed to learn to speak a language when he couldn’t understand it!! The teacher was frustrated because it wasn’t up to him to change a language to suit the intellectual satisfaction of his students. The language is what it is, and it cannot be changed to suit the reason of the student.

Upon reflection, it seems to me that in order to master something, we have to let the truth of it master us first. You can’t go into sailing expecting the ocean to follow rules. When you learn to ride, you have to learn the horse before you can expect to master the horse. It is like this with everything. Maybe that is one more lesson of the Cross: We have to let ourselves be mastered by what it is that we would be masters of, because God is love. Before the Lord stilled the storm, the Lord was willing to sleep on it. There is a lesson in that. The explanations aren’t the rule. The explanations only seek to help us to use our reason to make sense of the rule. But if our reason rebels against the way things are, it is our reason, and not the state of the universe, that needs to get into line. And just so, we have from the wisdom of the Church some teachings on what does and does not work according to the nature of marriage and its consummating act. The Church did not invent the rule. The Church gives the rule to teach us about reality that the Church has learned over the centuries. That is a difference between what the Church says about moral law and what a government, for instance, might tell us about civil law.