Apotheoun Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 02:10 PM'] We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties—deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it—namely, unity and perpetuity. Leo XIII [/quote] Cmom, thanks for the wonderful quotation. Sadly some people identify the [i]unitive[/i] principle of the marriage act with physical pleasure alone, but the truth of the matter is quite different, for the [i]unitive[/i] principle is inherent within the conjugal act and is an expression of the communion of love existing between the spouses, and so it is not reducible merely to physical pleasure. Catholics, in opposition to the Manichaean dualists, hold that the [i]unitive[/i] principle is a spiritual reality expressed through the whole of the human person's hylomorphic being, in other words, it is an act of the whole person, both body and soul. Marriage is an icon of the love existing between Christ and the Church [cf. Eph. 5:21-33], and as such, it possesses, conveys, and images, both the fecundity of divine love and the communion ([i]koinonia[/i]) of nature within the tri-hypostatic Godhead. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 (edited) Adam, You state that it's annoying when people get offended.....and yet [i]your offended[/i]. I have to agree with Pio Nono, you need to read some of his works, such as [i]Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility [/i]instead of isolated statements that obviously fuel your bias towards him. Read his stuff, then you'll be able to get a better grasp of what he is teaching and where many of us are coming from. God Bless! Todd! Peep the other thread about unitive and procreation. hope it's warm in stubie! Edited November 26, 2004 by jmjtina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 yeah, the physical pleasure is accidental the unitive aspect is a purpose in itself the procreative aspect is inseperable from the unitive aspect, but it can be considered the primary purpose while the unitive is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 The problem it seems to me, is when we use the language of ends. What is the end of marriage? If we say that there are two equal ends, this is problematic. It could have very bad consequences. So we have to say that one "end" is for the other, which makes it not really an end at all, but accidental to the end. I'll need more time to address what I am trying to say. Perhaps later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 but even the 1917 Code and Pius XII call them both 'purposes' or 'ends'. there are two ends, they are not equal, but both are important and inseperable. the primary end is procreation, the secondary end is the unitive, and pleasure is accidental to the ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 If they are not equal, then how can we engage in an act that places the lower over the higher? How is it any different than contraception in that case, at least as far as intention is concerned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 you cannot place the lower over the higher. they are inseperable. every sexual act must be open to life and unitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 The conjugal act is a single act, and so it isn't divisible into parts; thus, the procreative and unitive principles interpenetrate each other and are inseparable from each other, and as such, they form a single whole. The conjugal act is by definition the uniting of the spouses in a communion of love that is, and must always be, open to the gift of new life. To see the two principles of the conjugal act as standing somehow separately from each other, is to fail to understand the true purpose of the marriage act as God intends it. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I understand that. My point is, in agreement with you, that they can't be two separate ends. This is why, (and I will have to better explain this later), it seems to me that NFP, at least on the practical level, tends toward a contraceptive mentality. It seems to practically seperate the two, even if giving a nod to the procreative. It seems to say "I am open to having kids" at the same time doing everything possible short of actual contraception, to not have kids. Is it possible to have two conflicting desires at the same time? Example: Two married people desire the unitive act. They do not want to get pregnant at the time. They know they must be "open to life", so they wait until it is almost impossible to naturally conceive to engage in the unitive act? We even refer to NFP in terms of its effictiveness to prevent pregency. This seems to be possible only if we are taking the act in itself as a good apart from the procreative aspect. Thus we have two separate ends. I may very well be missing something here, but I can't think of what it would be. Any help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 NFP is also used to concieve children. Ask Bro.Adam for the password.....MANY practicing faithful couples who will be glad to share what NFP really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 26 2004, 12:54 PM'] I understand that. My point is, in agreement with you, that they can't be two separate ends. This is why, (and I will have to better explain this later), it seems to me that NFP, at least on the practical level, tends toward a contraceptive mentality. It seems to practically seperate the two, even if giving a nod to the procreative. It seems to say "I am open to having kids" at the same time doing everything possible short of actual contraception, to not have kids. Is it possible to have two conflicting desires at the same time? Example: Two married people desire the unitive act. They do not want to get pregnant at the time. They know they must be "open to life", so they wait until it is almost impossible to naturally conceive to engage in the unitive act? We even refer to NFP in terms of its effictiveness to prevent pregency. This seems to be possible only if we are taking the act in itself as a good apart from the procreative aspect. Thus we have two separate ends. I may very well be missing something here, but I can't think of what it would be. Any help? [/quote] It can fall into that type of mentality, and that surely must be guarded against. Fr. Brian Harrison has written a wonderful article on this topic. Here is a link to that article: [url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html"]Is Natural Family Planning a Sin?[/url] God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 [quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:57 PM'] NFP is also used to concieve children. Ask Bro.Adam for the password.....MANY practicing faithful couples who will be glad to share what NFP really is. [/quote] I have the password, I know what NFP is, how it works, and most of the arguments for it. Thanks for the offer, but most of people say is just repeating what the NFP propaganda (I don't mean that term in a negatve way) states and I have all the books and pamphlets already. My questions go deeper than that stuff will address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Glad to hear that. That article Todd posted seems to go (hopefully) in the direction you are asking. Pax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Nov 26 2004, 04:12 PM'] It can fall into that type of mentality, and that surely must be guarded against. Fr. Brian Harrison has written a wonderful article on this topic. Here is a link to that article: [url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html"]Is Natural Family Planning a Sin?[/url] God bless, Todd [/quote] Thank you. Fr. Harrison is a brilliant theologian. I've take a look at the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 (edited) opps, double post. Edited November 26, 2004 by jmjtina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now