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

[EasterJoy]

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.

Do not confuse the reasons for the rule with the rule. We believe that during the Mass the bread and the wine become the Body and the Blood of Christ, that is, the Presence of Our Lord, par excellence, body, blood, soul, and divinity. That is what we know.

We can come up with all sorts of theories to explain that, but in the end it is not the theories that we have to come to accept. It is the truth of what is in front of us and what response that demands of us that we must accept. The explanations are only to help us. If they do not help or if they lead us to a different conclusion, however, we do not use that as an excuse for unbelief. We simply discard the particular explanation and choose to believe what we know is true.

 

[Debora123]

Do not confuse the reasons for the rule with the rule. We believe that during the Mass the bread and the wine become the Body and the Blood of Christ, that is, the Presence of Our Lord, par excellence, body, blood, soul, and divinity. That is what we know.

We can come up with all sorts of theories to explain that, but in the end it is not the theories that we have to come to accept. It is the truth of what is in front of us and what response that demands of us that we must accept. The explanations are only to help us. If they do not help or if they lead us to a different conclusion, however, we do not use that as an excuse for unbelief. We simply discard the particular explanation and choose to believe what we know is true.

I don’t think Wanderer is using anything as an excuse to “unbelieve”… I think she simply knows the importance of understanding why we believe what we believe. When we are able to understand why we practice what we practice, doing so just becomes… better. Especially with somethings as difficult as NFP. We become better people for it.

I dated my husband for 4 years before we got married. Saving sex for marriage and not living together was hard… very hard. But I was happy to do it because I understood it and it made sense to me. NFP on the other hand, just made me bitter and resentful because I didn’t understand the reason behind the sacrifice we were making.

I think it’s important to seek the truth and ask questions, rather than be told to just sit down and color.

 

[thewanderer]

Do not confuse the reasons for the rule with the rule. We believe that during the Mass the bread and the wine become the Body and the Blood of Christ, that is, the Presence of Our Lord, par excellence, body, blood, soul, and divinity. That is what we know.

We can come up with all sorts of theories to explain that, but in the end it is not the theories that we have to come to accept. It is the truth of what is in front of us and what response that demands of us that we must accept. The explanations are only to help us. If they do not help or if they lead us to a different conclusion, however, we do not use that as an excuse for unbelief. We simply discard the particular explanation and choose to believe what we know is true.

Oh, don’t worry, I get that. That is why I spoke earlier about how for most people this just comes down to the virtue of obedience. I still would prefer to actually understand it, however. A lot about it really makes sense, there are just some things I am still trying to understand better. And I realize that even when I think I’ve got it worked out I could still be wrong about it. But I still want to understand it if I can.

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh, don’t worry, I get that. That is why I spoke earlier about how for most people this just comes down to the virtue of obedience. I still would prefer to actually understand it, however. A lot about it really makes sense, there are just some things I am still trying to understand better. And I realize that even when I think I’ve got it worked out I could still be wrong about it. But I still want to understand it if I can.

Yes, I think it is much better to understand as well as we are given to understand. Very often if we do that and do the work of reflection, it makes things much easier. When thinking does not help, however, it is the thinking that has to change. The fact is what the fact is, and it won’t change.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

This is also one of those teaches that leaves me scratching my head. And I’ve figured out why…the reason is that for the most part this teaching is based on Tradition rather than the Bible.

For many, there is great discomfort when something has its origin in tradition rather than written word (like every protestant that ever lived). Many view such things as simple opinion. Also, many familiar with various old traditions know that traditions change over time, sometimes very significantly.

The explanation of all this leaves me scratching my head. For example, there is some sex that is not procreative and purely unitive in nature. Until someone demonstrates that there is anything in the Bible or Tradition that indicatives that, say, woman with hysterectomies can had children I will continue to believe that. The explanations of all of this seem to be geared toward those younger couples that have there procreative function. Those that don’t have their procreative function seem to be an afterthought. Then trying to piece it all together makes for a confusing mess.

Simply stating God made men with “A” and women with “B”, and the instructions are put A in B, makes so much more sense.

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

Plan B is permissible in cases of rape? Not to argue, but really?

 

[Debora123]

Plan B is permissible in cases of rape? Not to argue, but really?

Yes, it is permissable for a woman to protect herself against her rapist’s sperm so long as she is not ovulating. God does not require rape to be procreative.

 

[Joe_5859]

Plan B is permissible in cases of rape? Not to argue, but really?

Several groups of bishops (those in Connecticut and Germany) have determined that use of “Plan B” can be morally licit in these cases. They are quick to emphasize that abortifacient drugs are never permissible. But they seem to believe that this drug is being used to prevent ovulation and fertilization (i.e. contraception) rather than implantation (i.e. abortifacient).

 

[manualman]

Plan B is permissible in cases of rape? Not to argue, but really?

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.

 

[Convert_in_99]

In our situation, our marital relations are ONLY unitive. We are infertile. We cannot engage in so called “creative” love. But the church still allows us to engage in marital relations. Same goes for couples using NFP. They are purposely avoiding creative love, because they have a just reason. But they are permitted by the church to continue to engage in marital relations even though they almost for certain won’t be “creative” because they are still engaging in “unitive” marital relations. I guess I am confused about your question. Both creative and unitive love are appropriate reasons to engage in marital relations. The only thing that isn’t allowed is contraception. As this is against the nature of both creative AND unitive love. You cannot be fully unitive if you are refusing to accept a part of your spouse, in this case his/her fertility.

 

[EasterJoy]

In our situation, our marital relations are ONLY unitive. We are infertile. We cannot engage in so called “creative” love. But the church still allows us to engage in marital relations. Same goes for couples using NFP. They are purposely avoiding creative love, because they have a just reason. But they are permitted by the church to continue to engage in marital relations even though they almost for certain won’t be “creative” because they are still engaging in “unitive” marital relations. I guess I am confused about your question. Both creative and unitive love are appropriate reasons to engage in marital relations. The only thing that isn’t allowed is contraception. As this is against the nature of both creative AND unitive love. You cannot be fully unitive if you are refusing to accept a part of your spouse, in this case his/her fertility.

When the Church says that each act must be procreative, it doesn’t mean “done with the intent to procreate”. Procreative means “done with the openness to procreate”. It means that you have done nothing to frustrate the nature of the action. It is not in our nature that every act have an equal chance of actually producing a child; that is why NFP works as it does. We are not animals in which sexual relations aren’t possible when conception is not possible. We are animals in which we would normally (if we simply did “what comes naturally” instead of according to an understanding of the consequences) engage in intercourse in such a way that the couple are as one flesh at least when the male reaches climax.

 

[Em_in_FL]

In our situation, our marital relations are ONLY unitive. We are infertile. We cannot engage in so called “creative” love. But the church still allows us to engage in marital relations. Same goes for couples using NFP. They are purposely avoiding creative love, because they have a just reason. But they are permitted by the church to continue to engage in marital relations even though they almost for certain won’t be “creative” because they are still engaging in “unitive” marital relations. I guess I am confused about your question. Both creative and unitive love are appropriate reasons to engage in marital relations. The only thing that isn’t allowed is contraception. As this is against the nature of both creative AND unitive love. You cannot be fully unitive if you are refusing to accept a part of your spouse, in this case his/her fertility.

Technically… no.
Infertile and NFP-using couples DO have both unitive and procreative sex.

“Unitive” and “procreative” are ADJECTIVES that describe HOW the VERB “sex” is performed.
You can have “procreative sex” by having the husband finish inside the wife. Fertility isn’t part of the equation whatsoever…

THAT’s why infertile couples and the use of NFP are all okay with the church. Sex IS STILL “unitive” and “procreative” regardless of fertility.

 

[manualman]

In our situation, our marital relations are ONLY unitive. We are infertile. We cannot engage in so called “creative” love. But the church still allows us to engage in marital relations. Same goes for couples using NFP. They are purposely avoiding creative love, because they have a just reason.

Common misconception. Post menopausal couples (for example) can have procreative relations like bunnies.

We live in a culture that is only concerned with physically measurable entities. But some of the most important things in life can’t be measured scientifically. “Procreative” is more than “scientifically verifiable to hold the potential to result in pregnancy.” It’s a spiritual mindset that is violated when a couple takes deliberate action to render themselves sterile. A couple temporarily or permanently sterile through no deliberate will of their own is perfectly able to have both unitive and procreative relations. Even a couple in which one was deliberately sterilized, but later repented is able to achieve this.

Some may object that I’m blurring the line between ‘unitive’ and ‘procreative.’ Such an objection misses the point that there really IS no line between them. We’ve artificially created these two categories in order to help explain things, but in reality sexuality is an indivisable whole that must be accepted as given or broken in the attempt to modify it. There are no other choices.

 

[Debora123]

You cannot be fully unitive ** if you are refusing to accept a part of your spouse**, in this case his/her fertility.

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.

 

[Debora123]

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.

 

[Em_in_FL]

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?

Because her fertility is as GOD DESIGNED IT TO BE.
The Almighty God created periodic fertility.

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.

By abstaining you are avoiding the act of sex altogether. There is no “withholding fertility FROM the sexual activity” if no sexual activity is even taking place.
It’s the separation from God’s design that is problematic.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

The difference is that the couple using NFP is saying, “either our lovemaking will be entire and according to the nature God gave us, or we will choose not to engage in it, which is also according to the nature God gave us.” The couple using contraception says, “we will change the nature of what lovemaking is to suit ourselves. We will not submit to our bodies and our sexuality as they are, but will bend our sexuality to deliver only what we want out of the marital act, rejecting that which we do not want out of it.” Instead of accepting the act and what it is on a particular day, by using contraception the couple dissects the act, “processes” the act, so to speak, in order to remove an essential part of it.

 

[Em_in_FL]

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.

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

 

[Debora123]

Because her fertility is as GOD DESIGNED IT TO BE.
The Almighty God created periodic fertility.

By abstaining you are avoiding the act of sex altogether. There is no “withholding fertility FROM the sexual activity” if no sexual activity is even taking place.
It’s the separation from God’s design that is problematic.

So as I said, the argument that fertility is being held* from each other* during condom use but not during NFP is a no go.

Your explanation makes more sense and is more easy to grasp… it’s a separation of fertility from the actual sex act. Not any conspiracy theory against our spouses to “withhold fertility” from them.

 

[Debora123]

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

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?