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

[Mary_Gail_36]

I never understood this argument either… and I’ve seen a lot of people use it here.

People claim that by using a condom, a husband is basically telling his wife “I am withholding my fertility from you.” And a wife is simultaneously telling her husband “I do not accept your fertility.” *

To me, this is silly, because if this is what a wife/husband are saying to each other when they use a condom, then how are they not saying something similar when they are using periodic abstinence?

Consider this:

By purposely not having sex with your spouse on a fertile day, a wife is basically saying “I will not make love to you tonight because I am fertile, and I will withhold my fertility from you.” And likewise a husband is simultaneously saying “I will not make love to you tonight because you are fertile, I do not accept your fertility,” **

Now, I personally don’t believe in either of those. I don’t think a couple using NFP is actually somehow “saying” those things to each other, but if I don’t believe a couple using NFP is saying those things to each other, then it would logically follow for me not to think a couple using a condom is saying it either.

I just don’t think this is the correct reason as to why every form of contraception is intrinsically evil.

• “But, let’s engage in an act that could result in a baby, and let’s just make sure it doesn’t. So use the condom, so we don’t need to abstain”

** They are not withholding fertility. They are abstaining. It wouldn’t be licit for the wife to “withhold” (meaning, husband wants sex, she says no) Husband isn’t saying, “Hey, you are fertile and you want to make love. I’m refusing, because I don’t want to have kids” Husband and wife have to agree to sacrifice intimacy for the sake of the couple and of the family.

The couple using a condom isn’t sacrificing anything. They are not willing to abstain, they are not even willing to postpone intimacy.

If a couple has really valid reasons to avoid a baby, they should be willing to sacrifice together. Sometimes the sacrifice is very hard. But it is a sacrifice.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Was there something incorrect about what I said? Doesn’t “procreative” simply mean man finishes inside women without any artificial means to make the act infertile?

No - that was not incorrect…

The part I was correcting was

Also, as others have pointed out… the Church’s definition of “procreative” doesn’t actually mean “procreative.”

and

Strange? Yep.

It’s not strange… it’s just language.

 

[Debora123]

• “But, let’s engage in an act that could result in a baby, and let’s just make sure it doesn’t. So use the condom, so we don’t need to abstain”

** They are not withholding fertility. They are abstaining. ** It wouldn’t be licit for the wife to “withhold” (meaning, husband wants sex, she says no) Husband isn’t saying, “Hey, you are fertile and you want to make love. I’m refusing, because I don’t want to have kids” Husband and wife have to agree to sacrifice intimacy for the sake of the couple and of the family.**

The couple using a condom isn’t sacrificing anything. They are not willing to abstain, they are not even willing to postpone intimacy.

If a couple has really valid reasons to avoid a baby, they should be willing to sacrifice together. Sometimes the sacrifice is very hard. But it is a sacrifice.

I understand that, but it is a mutual decision in both cases.

 

[manualman]

Was there something incorrect about what I said? Doesn’t “procreative” simply mean man finishes inside women without any artificial means to make the act infertile?

Really? This needs answering? As I said above, God’s design for sexuality really isn’t separable into constituent components. We construct words that suggest that it is so because we puny humans need to break big complex things down into digestable chunks. But the “constituent parts” of human sexuality are of no benefit to us if broken down.

Your above statement suggests that if a wife has received some bad news and is despondent when her husband arrives home, he need not bother himself with such things, he just needs to toss her over the shoulder, carry her to the bedroom and just make sure to finish in the right place.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to say that, but that’s what you implied. Procreative literally means “life giving.” Would you describe that scenario as “life giving?” Surely not. Again, there is no hard divide between unitive and procreative. They are different facets on the same jewel. Damage to one is damage to the whole.

 

[Debora123]

No - that was not incorrect…

Gotcha.

The part I was correcting was

No, there is nothing incorrect with what I said here. The Church’s definition IS different from the otherwise commonly used definition of the word “procreative.” Let’s look at Webster:

thefreedictionary.com/procreative

It’s not strange… it’s just language.

I apologize. Whether or not it’s strange is a matter of opinion. I do think it confuses people (as we have seen here time and time again) that the Church’s definition of the word procreative is not the same as the rest of the world’s. That’s all.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I still don’t think you understand the language…???

The Webster definition of the adjective “Procreative” is “Capable of reproducing; generative.”

In the Catechism, the word procreative is used to DESCRIBE the VERB “sex”.

The Church teaches:
Sex should be both unitive and “capable of reproducing; generative” (easy to replace)…

There’s no re-definition or twisting of the language by the Church…???

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Also, as others have pointed out… the Church’s definition of “procreative” doesn’t actually mean “procreative.”

Procreative (in the Church’s definition) basically just means man finishes inside woman without using any artificial means to make themselves infertile.

Strange? Yep.

This is the part that we actually have control over.

Whether the woman is fertile, infertile, post menopausal etc. we cannot significantly control. Even a woman taking fertility medication cannot force ovulation to happen at a specific point. We cannot even p(name removed by moderator)oint specifically when ovulation occurs, we can narrow it down pretty accurately to a window of 3 or so days.

It isn’t really possible to say an act is procreative if the male ejaculates vaginally *and *the woman is ovulating. Then most relations would be illicit --during infertile times, during pregnancy, post menopausal etc.

The act has to occur that if everything were ideal a conception could occur.

This is the reason that other completed sexual activities are not permitted. If the male intentionally climaxes outside of the act, the act is not procreative.

 

[Debora123]

Really? This needs answering?

Ok, I sense people are starting to get a little irritated with my comments/questions… which is why I usually keep my mouth shut about this issue anymore around here.

Time to bounce.

Thanks for all who have taken the time to discuss it with me. Perhaps someday it will become more clear to me.

 

[Debora123]

This is the part that we actually have control over.

Whether the woman is fertile, infertile, post menopausal etc. we cannot significantly control. Even a woman taking fertility medication cannot force ovulation to happen at a specific point. We cannot even p(name removed by moderator)oint specifically when ovulation occurs, we can narrow it down pretty accurately to a window of 3 or so days.

It isn’t really possible to say an act is procreative if the male ejaculates vaginally *and *the woman is ovulating. Then most relations would be illicit --during infertile times, during pregnancy, post menopausal etc.

The act has to occur that if everything were ideal a conception could occur.

This is the reason that other completed sexual activities are not permitted. If the male intentionally climaxes outside of the act, the act is not procreative.

Thank you Mary Gail. This actually does make sense.

You have always been kind and patient in your genuine effort to help.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I understand that, but it is a mutual decision in both cases.

Sure. A couple can both decide to sin by using a condom.

Abstaining is not a sin when it is mutual. Unilaterally withholding for no good reason is sinful.

An example is couple A. they have a valid reason to avoid, they practice NFP. They decided to avoid a baby by avoiding sex. No sin.

Couple B. He would like his mother to move into their home. Wife doesn’t want to. He withholds sex until she changes her mind. (Or she withholds until he changes his). Sinful.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you Mary Gail. This actually does make sense.

You have always been kind and patient in your genuine effort to help.

Thank you, I try to be.

 

[manualman]

Ok, I sense people are starting to get a little irritated with my comments/questions… which is why I usually keep my mouth shut about this issue anymore around here.

Time to bounce.

Thanks for all who have taken the time to discuss it with me. Perhaps someday it will become more clear to me.

I don’t mean to be insulting, I just find it helpful to look at a proposed principle in other circumstances to see if it holds up. The one you proposed clearly didn’t. Sorry if that sounded grumpy.

 

[thewanderer]

I still don’t think you understand the language…???

The Webster definition of the adjective “Procreative” is “Capable of reproducing; generative.”

In the Catechism, the word procreative is used to DESCRIBE the VERB “sex”.

The Church teaches:
Sex should be both unitive and “capable of reproducing; generative” (easy to replace)…

There’s no re-definition or twisting of the language by the Church…???

The thing is that even with that definition, most people would say that post-menopausal women, or those who are sterile etc are not actually capable of reproducing and so would say that any sex they have will also be incapable of reproducing. People just really don’t use procreative the way Catholics do when explaining sexual morality, and it really does confuse a lot of people. Without further explanation in makes them think that the Church thinks it is wrong to avoid children, and that every time you have sex you have to be trying for a child. People with this mistaken view come onto CAF all the time, and when someone explains what is really meant they say “but your church says it is supposed to be procreative and open to life, that means that you think the intent to avoid kids is wrong or that having sex for any reason other than having babies is wrong etc” It is very confusing and unclear language.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Nope… it’s LANGUAGE.
There’s a difference between the ADJECTIVE “procreative” and the VERB “procreate”.

There is obviously a difference between adjective and nouns. However, both deal with begetting children. If you do not have the ability beget children, then you do no have the ability to procreate or be procreative. You are then left with two choices: use another term to describe this action, or redefine the term.

Redefining the term is what has actually occurred, and for the reasons I stated earlier. The basic concept exists; marriage is geared toward procreating and raising children. When the issue of married couples that cannot procreate arises, the words are redefined to fit the circumstances.

Until recent history, the original concepts worked well. That’s because we could not truly know who could and could not procreate, and we didn’t have the ability to do many of the surgical procedures that we have today. So in the past we could use “procreative” due to doubt. Nowadays, we can determine with certainty in many cases if a person cannot procreate, and “procreative” is not an appropriate word to describe this situation.

If the Church can change the wording of, say, Mass or the Creed to more accurately reflect the intent, why is so unreasonable to change description of this issue to reflect our greatly increased understanding of the human body?

 

[on_the_hill]

Assuming the current scientific consensus is correct and that it works by preventing ovulation, then absolutely.

Contraception isn’t wrong arbitrarily. contraception is wrong because it inherently degrades the mutually giving relationship between man and woman. There IS no such relationship between a rapist and his victim, so there is no degredation when non-abortive contraceptive measures are taken to prevent conception resulting from the rape. See the difference? It’s the difference between memorizing a rule and comprehending a principle.

Indeed. Thank you for the answers.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The thing is that even with that definition, most people would say that post-menopausal women, or those who are sterile etc are not actually capable of reproducing and so would say that any sex they have will also be incapable of reproducing. People just really don’t use procreative the way Catholics do when explaining sexual morality, and it really does confuse a lot of people. Without further explanation in makes them think that the Church thinks it is wrong to avoid children, and that every time you have sex you have to be trying for a child.** People with this mistaken view** come onto CAF all the time, and when someone explains what is really meant they say “but your church says it is supposed to be procreative and open to life, that means that you think the intent to avoid kids is wrong or that having sex for any reason other than having babies is wrong etc”** It is very confusing and unclear language.**

Whether or not people use language correctly doesn’t matter… the Church is using the language correctly.
(fundamentally people are both poorly catechised and poorly educated for not understanding the language)

There is obviously a difference between adjective and nouns. However, both deal with begetting children. If you do not have the ability beget children, then you do no have the ability to procreate or be procreative. You are then left with two choices: use another term to describe this action, or redefine the term.

**Redefining the term is what has actually occurred, and for the reasons I stated earlier. The basic concept exists; marriage is geared toward procreating and raising children. When the issue of married couples that cannot procreate arises, the words are redefined to fit the circumstances. **

Until recent history, the original concepts worked well. That’s because we could not truly know who could and could not procreate, and we didn’t have the ability to do many of the surgical procedures that we have today. So in the past we could use “procreative” due to doubt. Nowadays, we can determine with certainty in many cases if a person cannot procreate, and “procreative” is not an appropriate word to describe this situation.

If the Church can change the wording of, say, Mass or the Creed to more accurately reflect the intent, why is so unreasonable to change description of this issue to reflect our greatly increased understanding of the human body?

Still no.
The words are not being redefined.
Being able to procreate is not a requirement for marriage.
Having unitive and procreative SEX is.

And this is very, very clear in the Catechism. There’s no redefinition depending on fertility - there simple isn’t. A sterile person CAN have “procreative sex”!!!
It won’t lead to actual procreation, but that doesn’t matter. The sex is still technically right.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The WHOLE DEAL with “unitive and procreative” is regarding the action of SEX… not the outcome of it.
This is why contraception is wrong… it alters the ACT.

You’re allowed to avoid children (with good reason).
You’re allowed to avoid sex (with good reason).
Your fertility isn’t part of the equation whatsoever… fertile, infertile, what have you… the only “rules” are regarding the act itself.

 

[thewanderer]

The WHOLE DEAL with “unitive and procreative” is regarding the action of SEX… not the outcome of it.
This is why contraception is wrong… it alters the ACT.

You’re allowed to avoid children (with good reason).
You’re allowed to avoid sex (with good reason).
Your fertility isn’t part of the equation whatsoever… fertile, infertile, what have you… the only “rules” are regarding the act itself.

I get that. My point is just that if people are going to use the language of procreative of open to life etc they need to be careful to explain what the Church means by that so that they do not lead others astray. The language can be confusing because it is being used in a different way than it is in everyday life and so has to be further explained. You can’t just tell someone on the street that the Church expects every act of sex to be procreative and leave it at that, and expect them to correctly understand what the Church actually teaches. They will assume that you mean that the Church teaches that every act of sex must be between two fertile people who are not using contraception. If we wish to use language differently than the average man we need to explain to them that we do not mean it the way they normally do or else they will misunderstand what the Church actually teaches, and will most likely dismiss the Church’s teaching as ridiculous because of their misunderstanding which could have been easily cleared up with an explanation of what the Church means by “procreative” in this context. A lot of Catholics do the Church a lot of harm by failing to explain this.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I get that. My point is just that if people are going to use the language of procreative of open to life etc they need to be careful to explain what the Church means by that so that they do not lead others astray. The language can be confusing because it is being used in a different way than it is in everyday life and so has to be further explained. You can’t just tell someone on the street that the Church expects every act of sex to be procreative and leave it at that, and expect them to correctly understand what the Church actually teaches. They will assume that you mean that the Church teaches that every act of sex must be between two fertile people who are not using contraception. If we wish to use language differently than the average man we need to explain to them that we do not mean it the way they normally do or else they will misunderstand what the Church actually teaches, and will most likely dismiss the Church’s teaching as ridiculous because of their misunderstanding which could have been easily cleared up with an explanation of what the Church means by “procreative” in this context. A lot of Catholics do the Church a lot of harm by failing to explain this.

Couldn’t agree more.
The church (as in, the local parishes) often drops the ball on Adult Faith Formation… once kids have completed Confirmation there isn’t any other education happening… and the Catechism is an AWESOME RESOURCE - it’s so clear and so concise and so easy to understand (okay, maybe some will need the help of a dictionary for the big words, but that’s okay!)…

This thread was started because the OP was assuming the Church taught something that it clearly doesn’t. We have to use the Catechism and read EXACTLY what it’s saying and not continue to guess or throw out analogies to explain it away.

 

[Debora123]

The WHOLE DEAL with “unitive and procreative” is regarding the action of SEX… not the outcome of it.
This is why contraception is wrong… it alters the ACT.

You’re allowed to avoid children (with good reason).
You’re allowed to avoid sex (with good reason).
Your fertility isn’t part of the equation whatsoever… fertile, infertile, what have you… the only “rules” are regarding the act itself.

I think everyone here knows this. The issue currently being discussed is the confusion that can/does arise with the word “procreative.”

As I have pointed out, if you google the word “procreative definition” you get something along the lines of “capable of reproducing” and “of or relating to reproduction.” As Wanderer has pointed out, we can understand how most people will look at this and think “well, a woman who has had a hysterectomy is certainly not capable of reproducing.”

…And that is how/why there is so much confusion with the word.