Is the purpose of sex both Unitive AND Procreative

[cmotherofpirl]

My tomcat would agree with that. but he is only out for one thing.

Humans have always seen sex as a sacred thing.

[qfnol31]

The difference between you and your cat is your body holds Transcendent Truth. Your cat does not.

[cmotherofpirl]

Yep.

My tomcat follows natures way. But we are more than just biology, we are children of God.

[amarkich]

I will submit that if the unitive aspect is an end in itself, then it is inseperable from the procreative aspect and that the two are not equal. I do not think there is anything wrong with that belief, but when we get into things like NFP, that is where the unitive and procreative aspects are split in order to prevent pregnancy. That is the biggest issue for me.

[cmotherofpirl]

When you are practicing NFP you are simply refraining from making love when there is the greatest possibility of a child.
You are still unified and can still procreate if God so chooses.

[amarkich]

From what I was taught about NFP, it is 99% effective in not producing children (if the couple wants this). This is still birth control; it is just a natural means. Sin is in the intent (the act, too, but in the intent foremost). If a couple charts and plans the woman's cycle (or whatever determines this, sorry I do not know exactly how it works), and then intentionally uses this information to control birth, how is that not sinful? There are times when it is impossible to produce children, right? To deliberately only perform the marital act during these times is removing the procreative aspect completely. Contraception still leaves an option to have children, too, because it is only 95% effective (if that).

[Socrates]

NFP is not the same thing as contraception.
NFP involves abstaining from sex during certain times.
Contraception involves performing a sexual act while actively doing something to frustrate conception.
Abstaining from sex is not a sinful act.

Birth control and contraception are not necessarily the same thing.

The Church has endorsed NFP, while she has always (and continues to) oppose contraception.

[Don John of Austria]

amarkich-- NFP requires nothing but abstance from sex. Abstance is not in and of itself wrong, therefore sex is not misused in anyway, thusly NFP is not sinful. Artifical contraception involves the use of unnatural additions to the sex act( either drugs or equipment) which intentionally interfere with the Procreative nature of the act, perverting it. Thus the sanctity of sex is violated and the act is sinful. NFP is open to life in each sexual act that actually occurs obviously this is not true if one is artfically interfering with procreation there is a very large differance.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 29 2004, 12:44 PM'] When you are practicing NFP you are simply refraining from making love when there is the greatest possibility of a child. 
You are still unified and can still procreate if God so chooses. [/quote]
That's kind of a loose argument though. If God so chooses, a person could get pregnant while on the Pill, or without even having sex for that matter (as has happened before).

[quote]Abstance is not in and of itself wrong, therefore sex is not misused in anyway, thusly NFP is not sinful.[/quote]

I would agree that abstinence is not a sin, but I don't think the rest follows, because part of every act of man is intention. While abstaining in and of itself is no sin, can the same be said when the intention of abstaining during fertile periods and engaging in the marital act only when the women is infertile is to not have children. How is that different from a contraceptive mentality, which basically says "I want sex, but I don't want to have kids right now so I will have sex only when I (or my spouse) cannot get pregnant".

Let me up the ante some. Science continues to progress in its knowledge of reproduction and fertlity. 50 years ago, the rhythm method was all there was, which was itself progress from virtually no concept of fertile periods. With each progression, accuracy in pinpointing the fertile period increases. We are now at 99%. Does the acceptablility of NFP, or the idea that by using it you are still open to life, rely upon human failure to be exact or precise in monitoring fertlity? What happens when the next step is taken and NFP is 100% accurate? Can you still be said to be open to life when you are only engaging in the marital act when you know that you are absolutely infertile and there is NO chance of conception?

Edited November 29, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Socrates]

The contraceptive act (having sexual relations while deliberating doing something to impede conception) is what is sinful, not the fact that someone is limiting the amount of children he is having.

Again, NFP involves abstainance, which is not a sin.

Actively frustrating the procreative ability of the sexual act is what is sinful.

Are an elderly couple in which the woman is well beyond child-bearing age making love sinful?
Is it required that a married couple have sex whenever the woman is fertile?

The Church has not condemned NFP. You would do well to accept her wisdom, and not condemn others who disagree with your opinions.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 29 2004, 03:26 PM'] The contraceptive act (having sexual relations while deliberating doing something to impede conception) is what is sinful, not the fact that someone is limiting the amount of children he is having.

Again, NFP involves abstainance, which is not a sin.

Actively frustrating the procreative ability of the sexual act is what is sinful.

Are an elderly couple in which the woman is well beyond child-bearing age making love sinful?
Is it required that a married couple have sex whenever the woman is fertile?

The Church has not condemned NFP. You would do well to accept her wisdom, and not condemn others who disagree with your opinions. [/quote]
How would any 80 year old have the same mentality as an NFPer? The person is not trying to have sex merely for pleasure and remove children. The person is not capable of havig children. Every example given to try to ague this point is in the position where the person is incapable of having children, not in a position where it is possible but he is doing his best to avoid it.

Did you read what he wrote about INTENTION. There are three things to consider in all acts of sin: intention, circumstances, and the act itself.

For example, if a person has the intent to commit what he thinks is a mortal sin (the common example is a boy stealing a penny and thinks its a mortal sin), and he does it anyway, then IT IS A MORTAL SIN, whether or not the act itself is grave matter. His intention to commit the mortal sin makes it one.

Intention is the entire issue here, and as you can see, it is a very big issue in addressing the morality of any act.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 29 2004, 02:38 PM'] amarkich-- NFP requires nothing but abstance from sex. Abstance is not in and of itself wrong, therefore sex is not misused in anyway, thusly NFP is not sinful. Artifical contraception involves the use of unnatural additions to the sex act( either drugs or equipment) which intentionally interfere with the Procreative nature of the act, perverting it. Thus the sanctity of sex is violated and the act is sinful. NFP is open to life in each sexual act that actually occurs obviously this is not true if one is artfically interfering with procreation there is a very large differance. [/quote]
To respond to this, I would like you to read what PSPX wrote:

[quote]Let me up the ante some. Science continues to progress in its knowledge of reproduction and fertlity. 50 years ago, the rythm method was all there was, which was itself progress from virtually no concept of fertilile periods. With each progression, accuracy in pinpointing the fertile period increases. We are now at 99%. Does the acceptablility of NFP, or the idea that by using it rely upon human failure to be exact? What happens when the next step is taken and NFP is 100% accurate? Can you still be said to be open to life when you are only engaging in the marital act when you know that you are absolutely infertile and there is NO chance of conception? [/quote]

[popestpiusx]

CC, I corrected some major typos, if you want to edit your post to include the improved version.

[Socrates]

Again, in contraception, the couple are intentionally thwarting the procreative power of the act.

In NFP, they are intentionally abstaining.

Of course, one should not practice NFP for trivial or selfish reasons, as the Church teaches, but this is for God to judge, not us.

Couples who practice NFP, for the most part do NOT share in the selfish and materialistic mindset of contraceptive couples. You should talk to some married couples who use NFP.

And again, if NFP was intrinsically sinful, the Church would have condemned it as such.

[popestpiusx]

I already know how to use NFP and I know many couples who use it. I also know that much of the propaganda and many of the people that I know, pitch it with a very contraceptive mentality. I'm not saying it is intrinically evil. I am asking someone to explain the difference between the two, from the standpoint of intention. Can a person engage in an act with two opposite desires at the same time?