Why every single marital act is supposed to be ordered to procreation

[Jaaanosik]

If God through the laws of nature does not intend for a marital act to be procreative each time.
Well, let’s see Humanae Vitae:

God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church,** nevertheless**, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

The Church, nevertheless,…, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

The Church ignores the God’s natural law and teaches otherwise.
Why?

 

[kwitz]

If I’m understanding your point correctly, I think you’ve misunderstood the definition of procreative. Procreative does NOT mean fertile. You can have procreative sex even when currently pregnant or post-menopause.

 

[thewanderer]

If God through the laws of nature does not intend for a marital act to be procreative each time.
Well, let’s see Humanae Vitae:

The Church, nevertheless,…, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

The Church ignores the God’s natural law and teaches otherwise.
Why?

Before trying to help explain this, could you let explain what you believe the phrase " each and every marital act must of necessity retain it’s intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life" I believe your problem most likely stems from a misunderstanding of this statement, so it would probably be easier to explain it to you if you could make this more clear.

 

[Bookcat]

The Church does not ignore God’s Natural Law…(and by the way that is not the meaning of the term “natural law” as it is used in theology).

The Marital Act is by nature to be unitive and procreative (open to life). So yes each and every Marital Act must be open to life (even when the couple is infertile).

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. 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.

1. 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]

The Church does not ignore God’s Natural Law…(and by the way that is not the meaning of the term “natural law” as it is used in theology).

The Marital Act is by nature to be unitive and procreative (open to life). So yes each and every Marital Act must be open to life (even when the couple is infertile).

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. 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.

1. 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

Let me clarify; saying God’s natural laws I meant laws of nature designed by God.
If I meant moral order I would say God’s Natural Law.
Having said that we observer the laws of nature as HV stated. Procreation/possibility to transfer life is not present all the time by God’s design.
Logical conclusion would be that not every marital act is required to be procreative.
Nevertheless, the Church says the other way.

Your quotes are nice but I am asking how and why these quotes came to be.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Let me clarify; saying God’s natural laws I meant laws of nature designed by God.
If I meant moral order I would say God’s Natural Law.
Having said that we observer the laws of nature as HV stated. Procreation/possibility to transfer life is not present all the time by God’s design.
Logical conclusion would be that not every marital act is required to be procreative.
Nevertheless, the Church says the other way.

If I understand you correctly, God doesn’t allow a situation in which a woman can be fertile 100% of the time. Yes, true.

Nor is fertility required by the Church in every martial act.

The Church is merely saying not to interfere with God’s design.

Artificial birth control, whether it is used in a time of fertility or not, is intended to interfere with God’s design. That is its very purpose.

 

[Bookcat]

Let me clarify; saying God’s natural laws I meant laws of nature designed by God.
If I meant moral order I would say God’s Natural Law.
Having said that we observer the laws of nature as HV stated. Procreation/possibility to transfer life is not present all the time by God’s design.
Logical conclusion would be that not every marital act is required to be procreative.
Nevertheless, the Church says the other way.

Your quotes are nice but I am asking how and why these quotes came to be.

Tis the nature of the marital act.

HV is speaking there of our observing not the laws of nature but refers to the “observance of the precepts of the natural law” HV is speaking to the moral order.

But sure …not every martial act will end up being fertile…but each one must be open to life. The unitive and procreative cannot be separated or you do not have then a marital act. We cannot use contraception etc to frustrate the nature of the marital act.

(by the way one cannot also separate the unitive either…I cannot “use” my wife for children…)

It can be a good suggestion to get perhaps a book that can go into detail for you…such as shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16717&cat=20&page=1

I have not read it but it seems to fit the bill

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I think the issue is a misunderstanding of the word “procreative.” When used in this context, it doesn’t mean that a couple has to be attempting pregnancy each and every time they have sex. It simply means that there has to be an openness to the creation of life with every act–in other words, the couple can’t be taking artificial means to prevent the possibility of a new life occurring.

At the same time, you have the unitive aspect which, according to the Church, is inseparable from the procreative aspect. You can’t have one without the other. The Church has been teaching for centuries that the conjugal act, when ordered, procreative and taken to completion strengthens the bond between a man and wife. The funny thing about this is that a couple studies over the last ten years or so (one in 2002 by someone named Gallup and another by State University of NY in 2010) showed that, biologically speaking, this is true.(I no longer have a link to the original articles and the quick 5-minute Google search I did only took me to sites that wouldn’t be appropriate to link to from here). The gist of the studies was that women who had unprotected sex were less like to suffer from depression. What they concluded, though, was that a compound in a man’s semen has, for lack of a better term, an addictive effect which strengthens the woman’s emotional and psychological bond to her partner every time they have sex, thus leading to a less depression and a greater sense of contentment. Conversely, women who have unprotected sex are much more depressed than their condom-using counterparts when their relationships fail, thus leading them to seek out a quick fix, i.e. another “high risk” unprotected relationship as quickly as possible. In actuality, this aspect of it also bolsters the Church’s teachings that sex should be preserved only for married couples and avoided outside the bonds of marriage. Funny how a bunch of clueless, celibate old men have been getting it right all along.

 

[Jaaanosik]

If I understand you correctly, God doesn’t allow a situation in which a woman can be fertile 100% of the time. Yes, true.

Nor is fertility required by the Church in every martial act.

The Church is merely saying not to interfere with God’s design.

Artificial birth control, whether it is used in a time of fertility or not, is intended to interfere with God’s design. That is its very purpose.

Martial act? sorry could not resist.

What do you mean interfere? God gave us a rational mind. We use it and interfere with God’s design in many places and I am sure He does not mind.
We are not supposed to fly and we fly, why do you take antibiotics and interfere, why do we do heart surgeries and interfere, …?

 

[sw85]

If God through the laws of nature does not intend for a marital act to be procreative each time.
Well, let’s see Humanae Vitae:

The Church, nevertheless,…, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

The Church ignores the God’s natural law and teaches otherwise.
Why?

Your misunderstanding pertains to the phrase “retain its intrinsic relationship.”

The intrinsic relationship of the sexual act to procreation is that procreation tends to occur when the act is completed according to its proper end: i.e., noncontraceptive, marital, intravaginal ejaculation.

The statement therefore does not require that every act conclude in procreation. Only that every act conform to the circumstances under which procreation normatively occurs. i.e., that every act be noncontraceptive, marital, and intravaginally ejaculatory.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If God through the laws of nature does not intend for a marital act to be procreative each time.
Well, let’s see Humanae Vitae:

The Church, nevertheless,…, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

The Church ignores the God’s natural law and teaches otherwise.
Why?

God told us to go forth and multiply, and fill the earth. We are to unite in marriage in order to create the children God wants to bring into the world. In the process, the sexual act also binds us closely together. Whatever the outcome, it is God’s to direct, but we are not to interfere with our natural reproductive faculties.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Martial act? sorry could not resist.

We Catholics are so repressed that we can’t even use the s-e-x word, we have to use euphemisms for anything s-e-x related.

What do you mean interfere? God gave us a rational mind. We use it and interfere with God’s design in many places and I am sure He does not mind.
We are not supposed to fly and we fly, why do you take antibiotics and interfere, why do we do heart surgeries and interfere, …?

Consider the circumstances here: flying vs. thwarting life.

God loves life, we know this, this is evident from scripture. God expresses no such love for keeping people on the ground (Tower of Babel notwithstanding).

 

[Jaaanosik]

Tis the nature of the marital act.

HV is speaking there of our observing not the laws of nature but refers to the “observance of the precepts of the natural law” HV is speaking to the moral order.

But sure …not every martial act will end up being fertile…but each one must be open to life. The unitive and procreative cannot be separated or you do not have then a marital act. We cannot use contraception etc to frustrate the nature of the marital act.

(by the way one cannot also separate the unitive either…I cannot “use” my wife for children…)

It can be a good suggestion to get perhaps a book that can go into detail for you…such as shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16717&cat=20&page=1

I have not read it but it seems to fit the bill

The first sentence of the HV quote ‘says’: “We recognize God’s laws of nature …”
The second sentence ‘says’: “NEVERTHELESS the moral order will be like this and we’ll call it natural law on top of that.”
Where is a logic behind it?

 

[Jaaanosik]

We Catholics are so repressed that we can’t even use the s-e-x word, we have to use euphemisms for anything s-e-x related.

Consider the circumstances here: flying vs. thwarting life.

God loves life, we know this, this is evident from scripture. God expresses no such love for keeping people on the ground (Tower of Babel notwithstanding).

It was typed mar-t-i-a-l not mar-i-t-a-l. Nothing else, that’s why I said SCNR

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

It was typed mar-t-i-a-l not mar-i-t-a-l. Nothing else, that’s why I said SCNR

Oops, my mistake. Darn, I do know how to spell it and I know the differences between the words, I just didn’t see that I had a typo there. Sorry.

 

[Bookcat]

The first sentence of the HV quote ‘says’: “We recognize God’s laws of nature …”
The second sentence ‘says’: “NEVERTHELESS the moral order will be like this and we’ll call it natural law on top of that.”
Where is a logic behind it?

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that** each and every marital act **must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

These two sentences are connected. The fact that new life is not the result of each and every act …does not change the moral reality that each and every act must be marital …it must be unitive and open to life. That is the point. Marriage acts need both the unitive and procreative (openness to life). Sex is intimately involved with both the union of the husband and wife and openness to life.

As Bl. Pope John Paul II noted:

“In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other. Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.”

~ Bl. Pope John Paul II General Audience, August 22, 1984

I really suggest getting that book I noted above…it should be very helpful.

 

[John21652]

If God through the laws of nature does not intend for a marital act to be procreative each time.
Well, let’s see Humanae Vitae:

God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church,** nevertheless**

You are confusing the laws of nature with the Natural Law. That paragraph you quoted mentions both. It states that the laws of nature naturally spaces out births. So, why interfere with the natural laws of nature? Oh yeah, when you want to have lots of sex, anytime, anywhere and with anyone and no risk of pregnancy whatsoever; no little rug rats to come along and cost you money. Now that is the extreme of breaking the** intrinsic relationship** between sex and procreation. Sex is designed for and ordered towards, procreation. That’s how we all got here. The precepts of the Natural Law, as taught by thye Church, are that promiscuous sex, or fornication, is a moral wrong. Why is it a moral wrong? Because it breaks the **intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation. Where does the moral wrongness come from? It comes from the harm caused by breaking the intrinsic relationship **between sex and procreation.

That** intrinsic relationship** has two parts to it, as Bookcat has been explaining to you and as Gordon Sims elaborated upon. One is the procreative nature of sex. That means it is intrinsic to sex that the possibility of little rug rats is quite high. The other is that sex between a human male and a human female is a bonding act. That, too, is necessary for the future well being of any little rug rats that come along. The sex bonding, therefore, is intrinsic to procreation too. So, break that intrinsic relationship and commodify sex in the process and you get harm. The broken relationships, the abortion rates, the pornography problem, the heart break associated with people using one another for sex, are the end results of breaking the intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation.

Your statement that the Church ignores the Natural Law and teaches otherwise is just plain false.

That** intrinsic relationship** does not require artificial contraception to be broken. After all, the abortion clinics are proof of that. Artificial contraception just makes it a whole lot easier and more risk free. The thing is, it is a deliberate means of breaking the intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation and altering the laws of nature. It has cheapened sex even more than simple fornication ever did. It has even cheapened and commodified it within marriage. If all responsibility for the end result of the procreative acts are taken away, then all sense of respect for the procreative act is removed as well, because with responsibility comes respect.

In post #9 you wrote this -

What do you mean interfere? God gave us a rational mind. We use it and interfere with God’s design in many places and I am sure He does not mind.
We are not supposed to fly and we fly, why do you take antibiotics and interfere, why do we do heart surgeries and interfere, …?

We do indeed have a rational mind. That rational mind is how we are to arrive at the Natural Law and to discern its moral precepts. Those moral precepts are predicated on an understanding of man’s intrinsic nature and his place in the natural world, which is governed by the laws of nature. Using that God given rational faculty, we can know that every interference in the laws of nature has a moral component to it, because that interference may, or may not, cause godd or harm to result to the human species and to nature itself. The moral rightness or wrongness is measured according to the flourishing, or otherwise, of humanity. Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral when a farmer irigates his crops at the height of summer? Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral when we use nose and ears to hold eye glasses to correct eyesight problems? Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral to dam rivers so big cities can have water security? Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral to fly? By the way, humans don’t fly, machines do. We just ride in them. In the process, no laws of nature are altered or interfered with, but are utilised for a benefit. Flying is not intrinsic to our natures, but utilising the power of natural laws to fly does not interfere with our natures either. Neither does hanging eye glasses off noses and ears and neither does reparative surgery.

Interfering with the intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation does harm our intrinsic natures. The proof is all about us.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You are confusing the laws of nature with the Natural Law. That paragraph you quoted mentions both. It states that the laws of nature naturally spaces out births. So, why interfere with the natural laws of nature? Oh yeah, when you want to have lots of sex, anytime, anywhere and with anyone and no risk of pregnancy whatsoever; no little rug rats to come along and cost you money. Now that is the extreme of breaking the** intrinsic relationship** between sex and procreation. Sex is designed for and ordered towards, procreation. That’s how we all got here. The precepts of the Natural Law, as taught by thye Church, are that promiscuous sex, or fornication, is a moral wrong. Why is it a moral wrong? Because it breaks the **intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation. Where does the moral wrongness come from? It comes from the harm caused by breaking the intrinsic relationship **between sex and procreation.

That** intrinsic relationship** has two parts to it, as Bookcat has been explaining to you and as Gordon Sims elaborated upon. One is the procreative nature of sex. That means it is intrinsic to sex that the possibility of little rug rats is quite high. The other is that sex between a human male and a human female is a bonding act. That, too, is necessary for the future well being of any little rug rats that come along. The sex bonding, therefore, is intrinsic to procreation too. So, break that intrinsic relationship and commodify sex in the process and you get harm. The broken relationships, the abortion rates, the pornography problem, the heart break associated with people using one another for sex, are the end results of breaking the intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation.

Your statement that the Church ignores the Natural Law and teaches otherwise is just plain false.

That** intrinsic relationship** does not require artificial contraception to be broken. After all, the abortion clinics are proof of that. Artificial contraception just makes it a whole lot easier and more risk free. The thing is, it is a deliberate means of breaking the intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation and altering the laws of nature. It has cheapened sex even more than simple fornication ever did. It has even cheapened and commodified it within marriage. If all responsibility for the end result of the procreative acts are taken away, then all sense of respect for the procreative act is removed as well, because with responsibility comes respect.

In post #9 you wrote this -
We do indeed have a rational mind. That rational mind is how we are to arrive at the Natural Law and to discern its moral precepts. Those moral precepts are predicated on an understanding of man’s intrinsic nature and his place in the natural world, which is governed by the laws of nature. Using that God given rational faculty, we can know that every interference in the laws of nature has a moral component to it, because that interference may, or may not, cause godd or harm to result to the human species and to nature itself. The moral rightness or wrongness is measured according to the flourishing, or otherwise, of humanity. Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral when a farmer irigates his crops at the height of summer? Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral when we use nose and ears to hold eye glasses to correct eyesight problems? Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral to dam rivers so big cities can have water security? Is it morally right, wrong, or nuetral to fly? By the way, humans don’t fly, machines do. We just ride in them. In the process, no laws of nature are altered or interfered with, but are utilised for a benefit. Flying is not intrinsic to our natures, but utilising the power of natural laws to fly does not interfere with our natures either. Neither does hanging eye glasses off noses and ears and neither does reparative surgery.
**
Interfering with the intrinsic relationship between sex and procreation does harm our intrinsic natures.** The proof is all about us.

It seems the fact remains that this is because the Church says so and not that it was observed and deduced from the laws of nature.
There is nothing wrong when a sperm does not meet an ovum.
The Church says use your brain, reason and it’s your call when you try and go for it.
Why is the Church saying how you go about something that is not wrong?

Let me use an extreme example. Why is the Church not saying that everybody has to sing at a mass? Is it a sin when you do not sing at the mass?

 

[Bookcat]

It seems the fact remains that this is because the Church says so and not that it was observed and deduced from the laws of nature.

It is from the Natural Moral Law etc --not the “laws of nature”. It is from the very nature of the Marital Act.

There is nothing wrong when a sperm does not meet an ovum.

Correct. Yes sperm -being from the male --have problems at times stopping to ask for directions…

But it is gravely wrong to seek to stop the sperm…such as via road blocks or to disengage his GPS…

The Church says use your brain, reason and it’s your call when you try and go for it.
Why is the Church saying how you go about something that is not wrong?

Yes It is Faith and Reason together…Contraception or other misuse of the sexual facility are gravely contrary to Chastity and to Marriage …it is very unreasonable to choose to end the life of grace in ones soul and to act contrary to love and marriage for the sake of a moment of selfish pleasure. The Church is teaching the very nature of Marriage and the Marital act…and what is gravely contrary to such

Let me use an extreme example. Why is the Church not saying that everybody has to sing at a mass? Is it a sin when you do not sing at the mass?

Murder is gravely sinful…the Church teaches one must not murder…the Church does not teach that it is a grave sin to not sing at Mass…but it does teach that it is a very grave sin to desecrate the Eucharist.

 

[fix]

It seems the fact remains that this is because the Church says so and not that it was observed and deduced from the laws of nature.
There is nothing wrong when a sperm does not meet an ovum.
The Church says use your brain, reason and it’s your call when you try and go for it.
Why is the Church saying how you go about something that is not wrong?

From HV:

A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

This on EWTN site:

To put it briefly, those who accept contraception recognize that it
requires an anti-procreative choice, the choice to set aside or get rid of
or destroy fertility and the openness of the act of coition to the good of
transmitting human life. Yet they argue that this choice is morally good
“because” the procreative aspect of our sexuality is not, for them, a
personal good but rather a merely functional good dependent for its “human,
personal” goodness on other aspects of the human person.32

The Church and human intelligence both insist that the human body, bodily
life, and the procreative dimension of our sexuality are “personal” goods,
goods of the human person, not goods for the human person.

The choice to contracept, therefore, is a morally wrong choice because it
is the choice to set aside or destroy something that is really good, namely
our own fertility and the openness of the act of sexual union to the great
good of transmitting human life.38 It is just as wrong to set aside this
good as it is to set aside the good of friendship in the act of sexual
union, a point that Pope Paul VI makes quite effective in his perceptive
account of the meaning of marital life and of the marital act.39

So fertility is not simply a biologic function that we manipulate for our own purposes.