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

[Jaaanosik]

For one thing the Magisterium of the Church which God has willed to give the authority to teach etc. Hence via the authority given by Christ Jesus the Logos and Son of God.

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love…”

Again please go get the book I noted earlier --I imagine it will give you more than what you are looking for and then some.

Do we agree that it’s only because the Church say so but it does not conform to laws of nature as stated in the OP?

 

[Bookcat]

Do we agree that it’s only because the Church say so but it does not conform to laws of nature as stated in the OP?

Sure. No laws of nature broken

 

[Jaaanosik]

Sure. No laws of nature broken

That’s the spirit. The only place to study laws of nature is Vatican.

 

[mark_a]

Do we agree that it’s only because the Church say so

It might help to know how this teaching comes to us from Judaism. Here is the best article I’ve ever read on the subject: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

And how is it that the Catholic Church (besides a few very, very, non-universal few Protestant denominations) is the only Christian authority not to have caved in to the endless pressure to do so throughout history?? Try this article: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[Bookcat]

There is nothing contrary to the “laws of nature” in the teaching of the Church regarding Martial relations.

 

[Bookcat]

Again look at the larger paragraph.

"11. 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.

 

[KCT]

“Ordered to” and “open to” are 2 different things.

 

[mark_a]

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

Why?

It seems to me that with a little reading between the lines, HV is speaking of body parts and the end result of the marital act. Thank God the writers of HV figured out a way to spell it all out.

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

Ask any man, and he’ll tell you that Onanism is the most unnatural act there ever could be.

 

[fred_conty]

Someone said,

QUOTE
“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.”
UNQUOTE

The bull and the cow don’t interfere.
The male bluejay and the female bluejay don’t interfere.
The Mr and Mrs Piggy don’t interfere.
The roses don’t interfere.
The …(Everything)… don’t interfere.

But the man and the woman DO interefere.

All creation is going one way and we are going the other?

Just a thought.

 

[John21652]

That’s the spirit. The only place to study laws of nature is Vatican.

Nonsense.

If you want to go and study the laws of nature, go to your nearest zoo. Or better still, go and camp on the African Savannah for a few moths. If you get eaten, you’ll be able to put it down to the laws of nature coming back to bite you. Literally.

If you want to study the morality of the Natural Moral Law, you go to the Vatican.

If you want to go to study the Natural Law legal theory, you go to the nearest University legal faculty and ask if they still teach it.

Consistently, through this thread, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand what the phrase ‘Natural Law’ refers to. It can refer to two things; firstly the legal code called Natural Law, upon which the western democracies are founded and secondly, the Natural Law moral philosophy which is contained within the Natural Law legal philosophy and which underpins Catholic Moral Theology.

The starting point for the formulation of and examination of Natural Law is mankind’s nature, or Human Nature and NOT the Laws of Nature. Natural Law moral philosophy is built upon an objective understanding of what human nature is and what its constituent aspects are. You should have read by now that Natural Law is discerned, using Reason. All that means is you figure it out using your God given brain. What is it you have to figure out? Easy. You figure out what are the universal attributes of human nature. Universal just means everywhere, for all men. Here’s a simple example.

You want to live. All men want to live. You have to eat to live. All men have to eat to live. Wanting to live and eating to stay alive are then universal aspects of human nature. Go to Africa, or India, or anywhere else you can find human beings and they all display the same basic aspects to their nature, which is they want to live and they have to eat to live, so they all eat! Because it is a universal characteristic of human nature to want to live and that characteristic of human nature is easily recognisable by any one, anywhere, we say it is universal and mind independent. Thus, we can say it is an objective characteristic of human nature to want to live, to want to eat to live and to want to get food to stay alive.

Now take a baby human being. It demonstrates to us right at the start of its little life that it wants to eat to live. Doesn’t it? It searches for its mother’s breast because it is hungry. You can either call that instinct, or something written on the heart of the baby. At this point, it doesn’t really matter. The thing is, we adults, as rational human beings, are able to work out that if we are hungry, we should eat to live. We can also work out, or discern, that that baby, who can’t even talk yet, ought to be fed, because we can discern that it is probably the same as the rest of us human beings and it wants to live too. So we feed it.

So, from the objective fact that human have to eat to live, we can say we ought to eat to live and we can also say that we ought to feed that baby so it can live too. Thus, feeding the baby is the morally right thing to do and not feeding it is the morally wrong thing o do. Starving yourself to death is also the morally wrong thing to do. However, as an adult, you are able to make the decison all by yourself as to whether you eat to stay alive. Natural Moral Law says you ought to do the right thing by yourself and eat. However, that word ought, gives you a choice. As a human being with Free Will, which is another objective facet of human nature (you know, human beings can be very wilful), you get to choose between doing what you ought to do to be good to yourself and to be true to your human nature, or you can do otherwise and die. Because that is suicide, suicide is an act against an abjective aspect of human nature and so it has been described as immoral for a long time. We now know, however, that people who committ suicide are not thinking normally when they kill themselves and so we don’t necessarily impute sin to their actions any more.

Now there’s another concept I just threw in. Normally. It is normal for human beings to want to live and to eat to stay alive. That is normal human behaviour. It is an objective truth about human nature. This objective truth about human nature is then called Normative behaviour. It represents what is the norm about human behaviour. After all, if someone decides to not eat any more, it is not considered ‘normal’, is it? And if a parent decided to not feed that new born baby, we would not say that was normal either, would we? If a baby is crying because it is obviously hungry, someone will say to its mother “You ought to feed that baby”. That is a normative statement and it is based on what we know about living, being hungry and what we have to do to stay alive. A normative statement tells you what you ought to do.

So, we have gone from discerning, or figuring out, what it is that is common, or normal, behaviour to mankind, to coming up with normative statements about what we ought to do. That is what the Natural Law is and how its figured out.

Cont.d

 

[John21652]

Cont.d

Now, if you do go and camp on the African Savannah, you’ll see lions that want to live heading out to find some food. Now they just might find you and decide to make a meal of you. After all, the lion has to eat to live, just like you and why shouldn’t he eat you? You’re nothing special to him, except you are easy prey. So eat you he will. Now try telling a lion he ought not to eat you? Apart from the language barrier, he has no social conscience at all. Why, Daddy lions will even eat the young begot by other Daddy lions if they get the chance. He does that because he wants his genes to rule. Of course, he doesn’t think about it that way; he just does it. Other lions don’t say, you ought not eat other lions babies either. Eating other lion’s babies and eating you is just what lions do. They have no choice but to do what lions do. The laws of Nature decree that lions eat what they can get and eat the babies of other lions if they can. That’s the Law of Nature.

Human’s are different. They can make moral choices. The Natural Law informs humans of what is right and what is wrong, but humans have to put their brains into gear to figure it all out. Lions cant do that.

Now there’s another aspect of human nature that we need to talk about. It is an objectively discernable truth that human beings are social animals. Humans like to live in groups. So that’s why families and tribes and territories and nations are founded. It is also an objective truth that humans like to procreate. Lions do too. However, lions will have it off with any lioness they can get their paws on. Gee, they will even kill rivals to get their paws on some lionesses. That’s what lions do. Humans, however, have worked out that human societies don’t function too well if we go around killing one another just to get a good lay. So, if we want to have a good social organisation, where we all get along quite well, then we ought not kill and we ought to peacibly get a mate for ourselves, which is another objective aspect of human nature. So we have come up with some rules which tell us what we ought to do.

And all those oughts are predicated on human nature and what we can objectively discern about its characteristics. In other words, we have a Natural Law morality which tells us what we ought to do if we don’t want to behave like lions. Morals are nothing more than rules for how men ought to live togethyer. Lions, by contrast, are stuck with just being lions because they are bound by the laws of nature, one of which will get you eaten on the African Savannah if you don’t respect yourself and the laws of nature enough. One of the laws of nature is that if you can run fast enough, you wont get eaten. Not being lions, but being rational little creatures, we come up with a moral edict that just says, killing another human is wrong because he wants to live, and we will call unnecessarily killing someone ‘murder’, so don’t murder anyone and being able to run fast has nothing to do with it at all, and the short version is “you ought not to kill”.

Next, apply all this to procreation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

The answer is found in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, in Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the three fonts of morality: (1) intention (2) moral object (3) circumstances.

(1) intention: the intended end, the purpose or reason for which the act was chosen. This font is in the subject, the person who acts.

(2) moral object: the proximate end, in terms of morality, toward which the intentionally-chosen act is inherently ordered (intrinsically directed). This font is in the act itself. By choosing a particular type of act, the person necessarily chooses the concrete act, and its inherent moral meaning before God, as determined by its moral object.

However, it is not the attainment of the moral object (a type of end) that makes the act good or evil, but only its ordering toward that end.

And this is why an infertile couple does not sin if they have marital relations open to life. The act has its proper ordering toward the threefold good moral object of sexual relations: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.

This is also why a couple who have contracepted sex, but by chance conceive a child, still sin; they intentionally-chose a morally disordered act.

(3) the circumstances of the act, especially its consequences.

It is disconcerting that no one who attempted to answer the OPs question above made any reference at all to the moral object or the three fonts of morality. The teaching of the Magisterium on the fonts and the moral object is in VS, the CCC, and many other documents. It is not a mere theological opinion that can be ignored or rejected at will.

 

[Bookcat]

It is disconcerting that no one who attempted to answer the OPs question above made any reference at all to the moral object or the three fonts of morality. The teaching of the Magisterium on the fonts and the moral object is in VS, the CCC, and many other documents. It is not a mere theological opinion that can be ignored or rejected at will.

Because the person who asked this question has already been through the sources of morality in the other thread. And while certainly the three sources of morality are true across the board …generally one does not find the Church or theologians using them often as the first approach in explaining the nature of the marital act. So I would not say anyone ignored them here.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The answer is found in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, in Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the three fonts of morality: (1) intention (2) moral object (3) circumstances.

(1) intention: the intended end, the purpose or reason for which the act was chosen. This font is in the subject, the person who acts.

(2) moral object: the proximate end, in terms of morality, toward which the intentionally-chosen act is inherently ordered (intrinsically directed). This font is in the act itself. By choosing a particular type of act, the person necessarily chooses the concrete act, and its inherent moral meaning before God, as determined by its moral object.

However, it is not the attainment of the moral object (a type of end) that makes the act good or evil, but only its ordering toward that end.

And this is why an infertile couple does not sin if they have marital relations open to life. The act has its proper ordering toward the threefold good moral object of sexual relations: the marital, unitive**, and procreative meanings**.

This is also why a couple who have contracepted sex, but by chance conceive a child, still sin; they intentionally-chose a morally disordered act.

(3) the circumstances of the act, especially its consequences.

It is disconcerting that no one who attempted to answer the OPs question above made any reference at all to the moral object or the three fonts of morality. The teaching of the Magisterium on the fonts and the moral object is in VS, the CCC, and many other documents. It is not a mere theological opinion that can be ignored or rejected at will.

Ron,
Way to go to misunderstand the original post question.
I am saying it is so that the moral object of the every single act is ordered to include the “the procreative meanings” - “is ordered to be procreative”.
I am saying it is because the Church says so.
I am asking how, based on what logic the Church says so.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Not being lions, but being rational little creatures, we come up with a moral edict that just says, killing another human is wrong because he wants to live, and we will call unnecessarily killing someone ‘murder’, so don’t murder anyone and being able to run fast has nothing to do with it at all, and the short version is “you ought not to kill”.

Next, apply all this to procreation.

There is nothing to kill when the sperm does not meet the ovum.

 

[John21652]

There is nothing to kill when the sperm does not meet the ovum.

You wrote that in response to this -

Next, apply all this to procreation.

“Next, apply all this to procreation” means apply the method and the way of thinking to the subject “procreation”. You did ask in post #13 -

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?

Now you’ve been shown.

 

[Jaaanosik]

It might help to know how this teaching comes to us from Judaism. Here is the best article I’ve ever read on the subject: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

And how is it that the Catholic Church (besides a few very, very, non-universal few Protestant denominations) is the only Christian authority not to have caved in to the endless pressure to do so throughout history?? Try this article: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Ask any man, and he’ll tell you that Onanism is the most unnatural act there ever could be.

Well,
let’s analyze the content of the first link. I just copied Gen. 38: 7-10 from it. I added (9.1), … numbers.

(7) And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.
(8) Juda therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
(9)(9.1) He, knowing that the children should not be his, (9.2) when he went in to his brother’s wife, (9.3) spilled his seed upon the ground, (9.4) lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
(10) And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

(7) is an introduction of circumstances, Juda’s brother is dead. (8) is a direct order from Juda to Onan what to do. (9.1) is more explanation what happens to children, introducing Onan’s thinking. (9.2) Onan went to have sex. (9.3) is how he prevented a conception. (9.4) is why he did. (10) Onan is dead “because he did a detestable thing”.

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

 

[John21652]

Well,
let’s analyze the content of the first link. I just copied Gen. 38: 7-10 from it. I added (9.1), … numbers.

(7) And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.
(8) Juda therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
(9)(9.1) He, knowing that the children should not be his, (9.2) when he went in to his brother’s wife, (9.3) spilled his seed upon the ground, (9.4) lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
(10) And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

(7) is an introduction of circumstances, Juda’s brother is dead. (8) is a direct order from Juda to Onan what to do. (9.1) is more explanation what happens to children, introducing Onan’s thinking. (9.2) Onan went to have sex. (9.3) is how he prevented a conception. (9.4) is why he did. (10) Onan is dead “because he did a detestable thing”.

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

Are you now attempting to change the subject without acknowledging that you now understand the Natural Law, what it is and how it is arrived at?

After all, your first post asked the following -

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

Particularly as this assertion has now been demonstrated to be false.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Are you now attempting to change the subject without acknowledging that you now understand the Natural Law, what it is and how it is arrived at?

After all, your first post asked the following -
Particularly as this assertion has now been demonstrated to be false.

Please, see my posts #27, #29.

I am not changing the subject, I replied to a couple of posts.

I fail to see your response to the original post. What were you trying to say in your two long posts?
Thanks.

 

[John21652]

Please, see my posts #27, #29.;quote]

I am not changing the subject, I replied to a couple of posts.

Yet you still come out with statements like this in post #41 -

Do we agree that it’s only because the Church say so but it does not conform to laws of nature as stated in the OP?

Then this in post #43 -

That’s the spirit. The only place to study laws of nature is Vatican.

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.