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

[thewanderer]

Since the Church does not teach that every marital act must include the intention to conceive it is not in any way contrary to the laws of nature which make it so that women are not always fertile, the Church’s teaching, rather, follows the laws of nature. It recognizes that there is naturally an infertile period in the woman’s cycle, as well as the fact that humans are rational by nature. This leads to the conclusion that it is natural for people to use their reason with respect to the procreative aspect of their marital relations. They can use reason to attempt to conceive. They can also use reason to prevent conception when it is too burdensome for them to deal with.

I suspect that this is where your real question comes up. What is the difference, with respect to the Church’s teachings, between NFP and Artificial Birth Control? If they are both used to prevent conception, why is one of them considered to negate the procreative aspect of marital relations but not the other?

The answer to this question comes back to a good hard look at nature. Procreation is seen to be an end of the marital act because this is the natural means of the propagation of the species. The unity of spouses is seen to be an end of the marital act because of the physical, emotional, psychological etc closeness that naturally comes from the marital act. However, nature is not designed such that every marital act will (if everything is working correctly) result in a new life. Because of this it is not intrinsic to the marital act that it must conceive (if everything is working correctly). This leads to the conclusion that NFP is ok for the spacing of births when sufficient reasons are present.
The next question, why is Artificial Birth Control not ok?
Artificial Birth Control interferes with nature by preventing conception even during those times when a couple would otherwise naturally conceive.

In other words, contraception etc is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature, NFP is fine in certain situations because it follows the laws of nature.

I hope this is helpful!

 

[Jaaanosik]

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.

good - suitable or efficient for a purpose
That’s one of the best definitions/meanings. When something is good then it fulfills its purpose.
If you say that laws of natures are not good (amoral - neither good or bad) then isn’t it an insult to God? Are you saying that God’s creations are not fulfilling their purpose? What do I miss?

The laws of nature are good. Check Genesis 1 how many times the word ‘good’ is used.

The Natural Moral Law stands on Human Nature - capability to reason and find out what is wise and good.
Human Nature reasons about nature of things.
Nature of things is defined by laws of nature.

You take away laws of nature, nature of things, there is nothing to reason about.
There is no Natural Moral Law.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Since the Church does not teach that every marital act must include the intention to conceive it is not in any way contrary to the laws of nature which make it so that women are not always fertile, the Church’s teaching, rather, follows the laws of nature. It recognizes that there is naturally an infertile period in the woman’s cycle, as well as the fact that humans are rational by nature. This leads to the conclusion that it is natural for people to use their reason with respect to the procreative aspect of their marital relations. They can use reason to attempt to conceive. They can also use reason to prevent conception when it is too burdensome for them to deal with.

I suspect that this is where your real question comes up. What is the difference, with respect to the Church’s teachings, between NFP and Artificial Birth Control? If they are both used to prevent conception, why is one of them considered to negate the procreative aspect of marital relations but not the other?

The answer to this question comes back to a good hard look at nature. Procreation is seen to be an end of the marital act because this is the natural means of the propagation of the species. The unity of spouses is seen to be an end of the marital act because of the physical, emotional, psychological etc closeness that naturally comes from the marital act. However, nature is not designed such that every marital act will (if everything is working correctly) result in a new life. Because of this it is not intrinsic to the marital act that it must conceive (if everything is working correctly). This leads to the conclusion that NFP is ok for the spacing of births when sufficient reasons are present.
The next question, why is Artificial Birth Control not ok?
Artificial Birth Control interferes with nature by preventing conception even during those times when a couple would otherwise naturally conceive.

In other words, contraception etc is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature, NFP is fine in certain situations because it follows the laws of nature.

I hope this is helpful!

Back to the original question. Base on what logic there is an ‘AND’ required between these two ends for every single marital act?

The reason I am asking is because the Human Nature has spoken.
The HV commission prayed, reasoned, studied carefully and the commission said something that was overruled.
The Human Nature speaks now in millions Catholics who ignore the ‘AND’.

It is not a clear cut to say that it is NATURAL to have the ‘AND’ between the two ends for every single marital act.

 

[Nate13]

good - suitable or efficient for a purpose
That’s one of the best definitions/meanings. When something is good then it fulfills its purpose.
If you say that laws of natures are not good (amoral - neither good or bad) then isn’t it an insult to God? Are you saying that God’s creations are not fulfilling their purpose? What do I miss?

The laws of nature are good. Check Genesis 1 how many times the word ‘good’ is used.

The Natural Moral Law stands on Human Nature - capability to reason and find out what is wise and good.
Human Nature reasons about nature of things.
Nature of things is defined by laws of nature.

You take away laws of nature, nature of things, there is nothing to reason about.

We are talking about morality here and the difference between right and wrong. It is not morally right or wrong when a naturally formed Tornado rips through a city and destroys it. It only becomes a moral issue when the Tornado has a human element. Yes everything God has created is good, but that description is outside the realm of morality as it pertains to humans. The idea of morality does not stretch to the acts of animals and nature.

There is no Natural Moral Law.

Talk about sticking a thumb in God’s eye… Why do you insist denying a fundamental principle of Christian theology?

 

[Nate13]

Back to the original question. Base on what logic there is an ‘AND’ required between these two ends for every single marital act?

The reason I am asking is because the Human Nature has spoken.
The HV commission prayed, reasoned, studied carefully and the commission said something that was overruled.
The Human Nature speaks now in millions Catholics who ignore the ‘AND’.

It is not a clear cut to say that it is NATURAL to have the ‘AND’ between the two ends for every single marital act.

Actually history says otherwise. Contracepting was seen as wrong for most of history. If we woke up tomorrow and 90% of people thought stealing was natural that would not make stealing any more moral.

 

[Jaaanosik]

We are talking about morality here and the difference between right and wrong. It is not morally right or wrong when a naturally formed Tornado rips through a city and destroys it. It only becomes a moral issue when the Tornado has a human element. Yes everything God has created is good, but that description is outside the realm of morality as it pertains to humans. The idea of morality does not stretch to the acts of animals and nature.

**
Talk about sticking a thumb in God’s eye… Why do you insist denying a fundamental** principle of Christian theology?

You separated the last line from the previous one. The intention is that the last line would be true if the previous one was valid.

 

[Nate13]

You a separated the last line from the previous one. The intention is that the last line would be true if the previous one was valid.

Haha alright so why can’t I create artificial tornado’s tsunami’s and send them to terrorize cities for fun if you can artificially contracept? Both happen in nature and therefore must be good morally for me to do right? I’d just be helping God out in the good he tries to do.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Haha alright so why can’t I create artificial tornado’s tsunami’s and send them to terrorize cities for fun if you can artificially contracept? Both happen in nature and therefore must be good morally for me to do right? I’d just be helping God out in the good he tries to do.

In the first case you would do something that is reasoned to be bad (to harm others - this can be observed from nature) but that’s not the case in the second one.
How do you reason that the non-abortive contraception is wrong?

 

[Nate13]

In the first case you would do something that is reasoned to be bad (to harm others - this can be observed from nature) but that’s not the case in the second one.
How do you reason that the non-abortive contraception is wrong?

Your treating someone as an object, not a person which is an assault on the dignity of the human person. I believe that is about how JPII would put it. If you need proof that people willingly throw their dignity out the window on a regular basis, just look at premarital sex or any variety of other sexual sins. People are more than willing to throw their dignity out the window in the name of fame, money, honor, and pleasure.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Your treating someone as an object, not a person which is an assault on the dignity of the human person. I believe that is about how JPII would put it. If you need proof that people willingly throw their dignity out the window on a regular basis, just look at premarital sex or any variety of other sexual sins. People are more than willing to throw their dignity out the window in the name of fame, money, honor, and pleasure.

Really, where did I say that?
When a married couple with kids who can not afford another one wants to express their love for each other by having sex, mutual act and the NFP does not work for them then sorry guys, it sucks for you, you are a no go.
Why are they forbidden to express their love?
It’s obvious to many but it’s not acceptable to others.

 

[Nate13]

Really, where did I say that?
When a married couple with kids who can not afford another one wants to express their love for each other by having sex, mutual act and the NFP does not work for them then sorry guys, it sucks for you, you are a no go.
Why are they forbidden to express their love?
It’s obvious to many but it’s not acceptable to others.

A man walks into my house and kills my entire family and I barely survive. He then escapes. I see him on the street and decide to shoot him dead in revenge, without making any attempt to bring him to justice under the law. In other words I take the law into my own hands. Equally horrible situation, yet I have still committed a murder.

Some women around the World are driven to prostitution in order to survive. They won’t be able to eat if they don’t go into prostitution, so does that make it okay?

I can come up with horrible circumstances surrounding the gravest of sins and yet you would concede that none of those circumstances make those sins ok. Some circumstances may reduce the culpability for a sin, but the act is always intrinsically disordered no matter the circumstances and remains a great evil.

 

[Jaaanosik]

A man walks into my house and kills my entire family and I barely survive. He then escapes. I see him on the street and decide to shoot him dead in revenge, without making any attempt to bring him to justice under the law. In other words I take the law into my own hands. Equally horrible situation, yet I have still committed a murder.

Some women around the World are driven to prostitution in order to survive. They won’t be able to eat if they don’t go into prostitution, so does that make it okay?

I can come up with horrible circumstances surrounding the gravest of sins and yet you would concede that none of those circumstances make those sins ok. Some circumstances may reduce the culpability for a sin, but the act is always intrinsically disordered no matter the circumstances and remains a great evil.

Your examples are off topic.
Why does the Church say that the non-abortive contraception is a sin if the Human Nature (the capability to reason) spoke otherwise through the HV commission?

 

[Nate13]

Your examples are off topic.
Why does the Church say that the non-abortive contraception is a sin if the Human Nature (the capability to reason) spoke otherwise through the HV commission?

Because the Pope, unlike the president, surrounds himself with the opposition to the argument. The question wasn’t what should be done on this issue, the question was should 2000 years of teaching be overturned here based on new information? If the Pope surrounded himself with a whole bunch of people who supported the Church’s position that would have been counterproductive.

My examples are not off topic. You were attempting to justify an act based on horrible circumstances. I merely wished to know whether you would also apply that principle elsewhere.

I’m going to stop arguing with you because the depth in which you are willing to go to reason your way out of this Church teaching is depressing.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Because the Pope, unlike the president, surrounds himself with the opposition to the argument. The question wasn’t what should be done on this issue, the question was should 2000 years of teaching be overturned here based on new information? If the Pope surrounded himself with a whole bunch of people who supported the Church’s position that would have been counterproductive.

My examples are not off topic. You were attempting to justify an act based on horrible circumstances. I merely wished to know whether you would also apply that principle elsewhere.

I’m going to stop arguing with you because the depth in which you are willing to go to reason your way out of this Church teaching is depressing.

By what you are saying I assume you agree that HV commission conclusions are OK in regards to what is Natural Law based on the new information and the only issue is if the old “Natural Law” gets overturned? Correct?
If there was no intention of changes then why even bother with the commission and give it a chance to create this controversy in the first place?

I am trying to find out why something is claimed to be a sin by the Church despite of HV commission conclusions and describe circumstances why it should not be considered a sin.
You take it and apply it to a sin where there is no argument.

 

[John21652]

good - suitable or efficient for a purpose
That’s one of the best definitions/meanings. When something is good then it fulfills its purpose.
If you say that laws of natures are not good (amoral - neither good or bad) then isn’t it an insult to God? Are you saying that God’s creations are not fulfilling their purpose? What do I miss?

What you ‘miss here’ is the fact that things that happen in nature happen because they have to happen. Go back to the long examples I gave you on page 4.

If you camp on the African savannah and a lion eats you, is the lion doing anything that is bad? Is the lion being immoral? Or is the lion just being a lion and doing what lions do? If he is being just a lion and doing what lions do, because he has no choice but to do what lions do, then he is being ammoral when he eats you.

If lightening strikes your house, is the lightening doing anything bad? Did it choose to do something bad, or choose to do something good? Or did it just do what lightening does?

If a rock falls from a mountain and kills you, is the rock being immoral, moral, or ammoral? What moral choices does the rock make?

The laws of nature are good. Check Genesis 1 how many times the word ‘good’ is used.

Of course they are good. The ‘laws of nature’ hold us on the ground; make grass grow; cause the tides; make smoke rise; let animals and humans breed; cause humans to get hungry; and a whole lot of other things as well. Everything that happens in the natural world happens because of the ‘laws of nature’ and God made the world to work the way it does, so yes, the laws of nature are indeed good.

However, there is something that stands apart from the laws of nature. That is human free will. Human free will can make us live with the laws of nature, harness the laws of nature and even attempt to overcome the laws of nature. Humans behave according to Human Nature and human nature can vary from being almost like animals to being very disciplined and self controlled. It depends on how free will is used. We can kill and eat one another like lions kill and eat their young, or we can live according to human moral standards and not kill and eat one another. Moral Laws constrain and control how we behave.

The Natural Moral Law stands on Human Nature - capability to reason and find out what is wise and good.

Yes. We reason and find out what behaviour is good and wise

Human Nature reasons about nature of things.

Not quite.

It is human nature to reason. Human nature can reason about the nature of things.
Human reason can even reason about human nature.

Lions can’t reason about lion nature!

Nature of things is defined by laws of nature.

To a point that is true. Human reason also defines the ‘nature of things’.

You take away laws of nature, nature of things, there is nothing to reason about.

If you take away the ‘laws of nature’ then there is no natural world. Or else, we can’t discern it.
However, we can discern the natural laws and the nature of things and so we know we live in a world that operates according to certain laws. Gravity is one. If we jump off a cliff, we fall and we stop at the bottom. It seems to work for everyone. Lions included.

There is no Natural Moral Law.

Yes there is.

Natural Moral Law is based on human nature. We can discern what human nature is and as long as mankind can exercise free will, we can discern what human nature ought to do and what it ought not to do for humanity to flourish. Jumping off cliffs and killing one another like lions are choices we can make. We judge those choices, those acts, as either moral, or immoral, according to what is intrinsically good for human personal and social flourishing.

 

[thewanderer]

Back to the original question. Base on what logic there is an ‘AND’ required between these two ends for every single marital act?

The reason I am asking is because the Human Nature has spoken.
The HV commission prayed, reasoned, studied carefully and the commission said something that was overruled.
The Human Nature speaks now in millions Catholics who ignore the ‘AND’.

It is not a clear cut to say that it is NATURAL to have the ‘AND’ between the two ends for every single marital act.

I think the way to understand it is that each of these ends is intrinsically connected to the very essence of the marital act. John Paul II says something about this in “Love and Responsibility”, I’ll have to try and find it for you. Again, this doesn’t mean that both have to actually result every single time, but to purposefully destroy the possibility of procreation is to do violance to the meaning of the marital act itself. Do you have a link to the HV committees writings? It might help me understand your point of view more fully.

 

[Jaaanosik]

What you ‘miss here’ is the fact that things that happen in nature happen because they have to happen. Go back to the long examples I gave you on page 4.

…

Let me clarify.
I did not respond to your long examples on page 4 properly because I was not sure about their meaning. Now, I see the issue is the Natural Moral Law.

First, I stand by what I said, I wanted to point out that laws of nature are good because they fulfill their purpose intended by the Creator.
Second, you are right, the morality is related to human acts/acting.
Third, the point I am trying to make is that the Natural Moral Law is reasoned/determined/decided by Human Nature, capability to reason about nature of things, determined by laws of nature, that are linked to human acts/acting in any possible way. Nature of something is essentially its purpose, why the thing exists.

…
However, there is something that stands apart from the laws of nature. That is human free will. Human free will can make us live with the laws of nature, harness the laws of nature and even attempt to overcome the laws of nature. Humans behave according to Human Nature and human nature can vary from being almost like animals to being very disciplined and self controlled.

Human Nature does not change. The capability to reason, set a goal and to go after it is the Human Nature. It is not natural to act like an animal for a human. Distorted reasoning or goal makes human to act like animals.

…
To a point that is true. Human reason also defines the ‘nature of things’.

Human reason, a person defines nature of things when it creates something. The creator defines nature of things, their purpose.

Human reason does not define nature of things, laws of nature, that were created by the Creator. Human reason defines models about nature of things, laws of nature, when it tries to study them and to understand what they are about. The model does not have to be 100% equal to the reality on many occasions.

Here is an example why it’s good that human reason does not define nature of things that were created by God.
“It is natural for lions to fly.” - prove me wrong without laws of nature.

You take away laws of nature, nature of things, there is nothing to reason about.
There is no Natural Moral Law.

If you take away the ‘laws of nature’ then there is no natural world. Or else, we can’t discern it.
However, we can discern the natural laws and the nature of things and so we know we live in a world that operates according to certain laws. Gravity is one. If we jump off a cliff, we fall and we stop at the bottom. It seems to work for everyone. Lions included.
Yes there is.

Natural Moral Law is based on human nature. We can discern what human nature is and as long as mankind can exercise free will, we can discern what human nature ought to do and what it ought not to do for humanity to flourish. Jumping off cliffs and killing one another like lions are choices we can make. We judge those choices, those acts, as either moral, or immoral, according to what is intrinsically good for human personal and social flourishing.

My bad, the two lines were not supposed to be separated.
If “You take away laws of nature, nature of things, there is nothing to reason about.” then “There is no Natural Moral Law.”

 

[Jaaanosik]

I think the way to understand it is that each of these ends is intrinsically connected to the very essence of the marital act. John Paul II says something about this in “Love and Responsibility”, I’ll have to try and find it for you. Again, this doesn’t mean that both have to actually result every single time, but to purposefully destroy the possibility of procreation is to do violance to the meaning of the marital act itself. Do you have a link to the HV committees writings? It might help me understand your point of view more fully.

Google Humanae Vitae commission. You’ll get good links.

 

[John21652]

Let me clarify.
…

First, I stand by what I said, I wanted to point out that laws of nature are good because they fulfill their purpose intended by the Creator.

I never disagreed with this point.

Second, you are right, the morality is related to human acts/acting.

Exactly.

Third, the point I am trying to make is that the Natural Moral Law is reasoned/determined/decided by Human Nature,

Human Nature can mean a whole lot of things and encompass a whole lot of different behaviours.

capability to reason about nature of things,

Human reason is used to discern certain basic aspects of human nature and to arrive at objective ‘norms’ about human nature.

determined by laws of nature

,Not all ‘laws of nature’ are relevant to determining how humans should behave. Lions eat the young of other lions because that’s what the ‘laws of nature’ tell lions to do.

that are linked to human acts/acting in any possible way.

Humans can indeed act in any possible way. They can even act like animals if they so choose. However, reason tells us we are not animals and should act like most other human beings and not like animals.

Nature of something is essentially its purpose, why the thing exists.

So then, what is the essential purpose of a human being’s existence? Is it just survival? Is it to procreate? Is it to be friendly to other human beings? Is it to live according to what we think is the best human being we can be? Or maybe the essential purpose of a human’s existence is a combination of all those things? Or maybe the essential purpose of human existence is to lead a ‘good life’ for the glory of God? Then we must ask, what’s a ‘good life’? This is where morality comes into play, because morality and moral codes inform us of what choices we should, or should not make if we want to lead a ‘good life’.

Human Nature does not change

. This is where you need to read more carefully. I did not say human nature changes. I said ‘human nature can vary’. By that I mean human nature can show variations in how people behave.

The capability to reason, set a goal and to go after it is the Human Nature.

The ability to reason and to set goals is indeed a part of human nature. However, not all human beings are reasonable and not all human beings set goals.

It is not natural to act like an animal for a human.

Well, we have historical evidence that in some societies eating other people was considered OK. And there is historical evidence that some people invaded other people’s territories and killed their women and children. We hear and read about people killing their own children, just like some animals do. And what about women who kill their own young even before they are born? So, there is evidence that some people have indeed behaved like animals. So how can you say these things are “not natural”? Obviously then, we can say human beings are quite capable of acting like animals.

Distorted reasoning or goal makes human to act like animals.

Does this mean that women who kill their own babies are acting irrationally? After all, a woman who kills her own child because she can’t afford to keep it might be acting in a perfectly rational manner. Not all rational acts are good acts, are they?

Perhaps we need to narrow down the scope of how we describe human nature? We do this by discerning and objectively describing what is ‘normative’ about human nature.

Have you heard of the “norms of society”? Norms just give us a standard of what is right and fitting for human nature in all normal circumstances. We can ascertain what is fairly ypical, or normative, about how humans live and function. The process is described back on page 4.

Human reason, a person defines nature of things when it creates something. The creator defines nature of things, their purpose.

Lets apply this to human beings. What is the essential nature of a human being. Can you list certain attributes of a human being that describe a human’s essential nature? Mankind has free will, given by God. Therefore mankind can be whatever he wants to be. If, as you say, the reator has defined the nature of man, then how do we find out what it is?

Human reason does not define nature of things, laws of nature, that were created by the Creator.

Human reason must discern what those laws of nature are.

Human reason defines models about nature of things, laws of nature, when it tries to study them and to understand what they are about. The model does not have to be 100% equal to the reality on many occasions.

Human reason does define what the nature of things is and human reason does indeed define models for a better understanding of things in the natural world. In science, there are many ‘models’ used to describe the nature of things. An objective model, is Natural Law and its morality which describes how humans ought to live and behave.

Here is an example why it’s good that human reason does not define nature of things that were created by God.
“It is natural for lions to fly.” - prove me wrong without laws of nature.

We have already used human reason to figure out that lions don’t fly. To try to prove you wrong without using the laws of nature is silly. Without our experience of nature we wouldn’t even know what a lion was.

My bad, the two lines were not supposed to be separated.
If “You take away laws of nature, nature of things, there is nothing to reason about.” then “There is no Natural Moral Law.”

It is the nature of man that is the subject of Natural Law enquiry. Mankind lives in an environment that has laws of nature which also govern and constrain his behaviour.

 

[Leontes]

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.

No, by definition, a procreative act is an act capable of reproducing. Any sexual activity other than intercourse when I women is actually able to conceive is not procreative. Sex at any time other than when a woman is in a state of her cycle where she can be impregnated is not procreative. That is the meaning of the word.

What is commonly called procreative in Christian parlance would more accurately be called acts which mimic acts which are procreative. There is a difference.