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

[Jaaanosik]

You responded to my post

Are you reading everything properly? A number of posters have pointed out to you that you don’t seem to understand the difference between Natural Law and the Law of Nature. Bookcat, in post #28 wrote this to you -

Yet you still come out with statements like this in post #41 -
Then this in post #43 - And it was in answer to that wrong statement that I made my two long posts, to show you that there is a difference between the laws of nature and Natural Law and how Natural Law morality is arrived at. You don’t go to the Vatican to study the laws of nature.

Your posts 27 and 29 were wrong because Natural Law is not arrived at by studying the laws of nature but through primarily studying the nature of man plus his place in the natural world. The ‘Natural’ in Natural Law refers to the Nature of man… Now read those two long posts again, because they contrast Natural Law with the laws of nature.

Right, I agree, and what I am saying is that the nature of man is to reason.
Can reasoning happen by itself? No, it needs something to be reasoned about. What is that?
Reasoning about laws of nature; that something is wise and good based on God’s design in the nature.
Studying the nature of man is studying of man’s reasoning about laws of nature and especially the results of the reasoning.
The laws of nature are a common denominator here because all men should arrive to the same conclusions what is wise and good.
That’s my point why laws of nature are so important in the Natural Moral Law.

I am asking what reasoning, about what laws of nature was used in order to say that it is Natural Moral Law that every single marital act is supposed to be ordered to procreation.

 

[fix]

I am asking what reasoning, about what laws of nature was used in order to say that it is Natural Moral Law that every single marital act is supposed to be ordered to procreation.

You are asking the wrong question. It is not exclusively the biologic cycle that leads one to understand the truth of the matter.

 

[SusanneT]

I think it’s very interesting that almost everyone in this debate seems to be male. Maybe that’s why it’s so academic ?

For women who follow Catholic teaching I think the connection with the procreative aspect of the marital act is much more ‘real’ and remains so for much of married life.

We all feel it in one way or another every time and are conscious of it for some time afterwards.

Just a thought !

 

[Jaaanosik]

You are asking the wrong question. It is not exclusively the biologic cycle that leads one to understand the truth of the matter.

Please, don’t stop. Explain.
Thanks.

 

[fix]

Please, don’t stop. Explain.
Thanks.

Well for one thing take another look at the CCC and HV:

Faithfulness to God’s Design

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. 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)

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

My point is that the teaching is not simply some physical truth, although that is important. It is a moral truth as well.

The gift of fertility is a personal good. Not something we may suppress or alter for some other purpose.

 

[John21652]

I think it’s very interesting that almost everyone in this debate seems to be male. Maybe that’s why it’s so academic ?

For women who follow Catholic teaching I think the connection with the procreative aspect of the marital act is much more ‘real’ and remains so for much of married life.

We all feel it in one way or another every time and are conscious of it for some time afterwards.

Just a thought !

Very interesting comment Susanne, Could you explain it a little more for we mere males?

 

[mark_a]

The issue is to identify “the detestable thing”.
So after explaining the circumstances, what was happening, why it was happening we are supposed to believe that “the detestable thing” is how Onan did it? And not WHAT and WHY but HOW? Really?

The “WHAT”: Onan contracepted. And, by the way, against his SIL’s wishes.
The “WHY”: Because he wanted his jollies without the responsibility.
The “HOW”: Placed his seed where it didn’t belong.

Does it mean that what Onan did and why he did it is OK and the only “detestable thing” is how?

You’re preachin’ to th’ choir.

Does it really make sense?

Absolutely not. But is there any other way Onan could have contracepted?

Why was all the stuff (what and why) even mentioned if it was not important? Why the scripture did not go straight to saying “spilling the seed” is going to be punished by death?

It’s like you’re arguing the Catholic point of view now.

 

[mark_a]

We all feel it in one way or another every time and are conscious of it for some time afterwards.

Just a thought !

Could you clarify?

If you are saying what I think you are saying, wouldn’t women feel the same after intercourse with a vasectimized man?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Well for one thing take another look at the CCC and HV:

My point is that the teaching is not simply some physical truth, although that is important. It is a moral truth as well.

The gift of fertility is a personal good. Not something we may suppress or alter for some other purpose.

I’ve mentioned it a few times already. The moral truth, the Natural Moral Law has to have a foundation in the laws of nature otherwise anybody can say anything and claim that’s what God inscribed in my heart and that’s going to be the Natural Moral Law.
Is there a pointer in your quotes to such a law of nature that would indicate a sperm meeting an ovum every single time?

 

[Jaaanosik]

The “WHAT”: Onan contracepted. And, by the way, against his SIL’s wishes.
The “WHY”: Because he wanted his jollies without the responsibility.
The “HOW”: Placed his seed where it didn’t belong.

You’re preachin’ to th’ choir.

Absolutely not. But is there any other way Onan could have contracepted?

It’s like you’re arguing the Catholic point of view now.

Really?

 

[John21652]

I’ve mentioned it a few times already. The moral truth, the Natural Moral Law has to have a foundation in the laws of nature otherwise anybody can say anything and claim that’s what God inscribed in my heart and that’s going to be the Natural Moral Law.
Is there a pointer in your quotes to such a law of nature that would indicate a sperm meeting an ovum every single time?

Wrong again.

Moral truth, the Natural Moral Law has its foundations in the Nature of Man.

The Laws of Nature are amoral.
Human nature can be moral, immoral, or amoral.
That’s why humans need moral codes and lions don’t.

 

[SusanneT]

Could you clarify?

If you are saying what I think you are saying, wouldn’t women feel the same after intercourse with a vasectimized man?

What I mean is that (during her ‘fertile’ years anyway) everytime a Catholic wife has intercourse the question of procreation is always present in her mind. Either she wants to, or does not - or hopefully is just relaxed about it (less common I suspect). And as she doesn’t know until some tiome afterwards what has happened it remains an issue for some time afterwards.

 

[Bookcat]

From the CA Guest who often appears on Catholic Answers Live to discuss Bio-ethics

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1124

 

[fix]

I’ve mentioned it a few times already. The moral truth, the Natural Moral Law has to have a foundation in the laws of nature otherwise anybody can say anything and claim that’s what God inscribed in my heart and that’s going to be the Natural Moral Law.

No, it is not about the laws of nature as you imply here. It is about reason.

Is there a pointer in your quotes to such a law of nature that would indicate a sperm meeting an ovum every single time?

That is not what the natural moral law reveals and not what the Church has said.

 

[Bookcat]

From the CA Guest who often appears on Catholic Answers Live to discuss Bio-ethics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1124

(this is not a radio show it is a short 1 page writing by him)

 

[Jaaanosik]

Wrong again.

Moral truth, the Natural Moral Law has its foundations in the Nature of Man.

**The Laws of Nature are amoral. **
Human nature can be moral, immoral, or amoral.
That’s why humans need moral codes and lions don’t.

If something is amoral is good or bad?

 

[mark_a]

What I mean is that (during her ‘fertile’ years anyway) everytime a Catholic wife has intercourse the question of procreation is always present in her mind. Either she wants to, or does not - or hopefully is just relaxed about it (less common I suspect). And as she doesn’t know until some tiome afterwards what has happened it remains an issue for some time afterwards.

Ok, that was a big fat misread on my part.

 

[mark_a]

Really?

Really what?

 

[Nate13]

If something is amoral is good or bad?

Amoral = Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.

Something that is amoral is neither good or bad in and of itself. A naturally occurring tornado is not moral or immoral. If you go and find a way to make a tornado come into existence over a city and destroy it that would then enter the realm of morality because the act would have an instigator capable of reason.

Thus you can see why argument that say “well its naturally occurring in nature therefore it must be ok to do ourselves” are bogus. If so, tsunami’s happen naturally and therefore it must obviously be ok for me to create tsunami’s artificially or enhance naturally occurring ones that destroy villages and cities.

 

[thewanderer]

Please, read the title again.
I am not saying the act during infertile period is against the laws of nature.
I am trying to find out the opposite, why every act is supposed to be ordered to procreation.

Sorry for the confusion! The OP made it sound as though you believed that the Church’s teachings opposed the natural law, I was simply looking for clarification so that I could help answer your question better.

This thread seems to be full of confusion, so I will attempt to give at least basic definitions of my terms. Here goes.

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to understand why the Church teaches that every marital act must retain its correct ordination to procreation even though the ‘laws of nature’ dictate that women are only fertile some of the time. I am assuming, then, that by ‘laws of nature’ you mean the physical laws of the world around us that can be measured and determined by science. Please correct me if you mean something else.

It also seems that you believe the Church’s teaching that every marital act must retain its ordination to procreation means that every sperm must meet an ovum

I’ve mentioned it a few times already. The moral truth, the Natural Moral Law has to have a foundation in the laws of nature otherwise anybody can say anything and claim that’s what God inscribed in my heart and that’s going to be the Natural Moral Law.
Is there a pointer in your quotes to such a law of nature that would indicate a sperm meeting an ovum every single time?

However, this is not what the Church teaches. If it were, it would be an obligation upon all married Catholics to use NFP to determine when they were fertile and to only engage in marital relations while fertile, to not engage in marital relations if they are experiencing fertility difficulties etc. Which it clearly does not. I’m not sure if you really meant to imply that this is the Church’s teaching, either way, I’m just trying to clarify things.

So the question remains, what actually is the Church’s teaching, and why is it not contradictory to the fact that women are not always fertile.

The Church’s teaching can be understood from the following quotes from HV

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

In other words, the Church teaches that it is fine use intellect to regulate births through natural means if you have a sufficient reason. Artificial birth control is never allowed for the purpose of preventing life.

(Cont)