Is the purpose of sex both Unitive AND Procreative

[Guest Aluigi]

contraception is a sin against both purposes of marriage, procreation of course but also union ("i want to unite with you, but keep my fluids to myself if you don't mind, we should put some barrier in between us, but still unite i swear" yeah right)

with NFP every time you have sex, you are open to each other and open to life, you're just having sex less.

[Apotheoun]

To be fair to PSPX, I don't think that he is saying that NFP is intrinsically immoral; instead, he is simply pointing out that using NFP with a "contraceptive mentality" is disordered and contrary to the moral law. Married couples can use NFP for "grave reasons" in order to space out the births of their children, but if the married couple lacks truly grave reasons for doing this, it follows that they are misusing NFP and are committing a mortal sin. [cf. Pope Paul VI, [u]Humanae Vitae[/u], nos. 10 and 16]

God bless,
Todd

[Theoketos]

Amarick,

Remember that Sex is a good thing, even if it is not creative every time. I believe that sex is a good thing and God meant for spouses to have it as often as possible so that they may have a stronger and more personal union.

The intention does matter, if the couple is avoiding sex for selfish reasons it is contraception, no matter how long. Thus a couple who refrains from sex at all times not just when she is infertile, for selfish reasons, would be committing a sin by their intentions. Because they would not be open to life. Also not having sex for a long time with in marriage, I only imagine creates a whole mess of problems. And the Vatican recently encouraged more married love making to counter act the frigidity caused be the cultural of death.

There are a so many good reasons for married sex. Each comes back to both the unitive and the procreative.

Now it is not always good for the act to be creative (like when the mother or the baby might die), but it is always good for the act to be procreative. Thus we must look at the difference between procreative and creative.

It is good here to recall that contraception is against procreation and thus necessarily creation.

Creative simply means, in this case, the formation of new life.

Procreative means for life, that is for the best of life. (By this I mean a complete respect for the human person as a creation)

A Procreative conjugal union is not always creative (Although it must be open to it). For example, I assume that even those with spouses with big families consummate their marriage more then the number of childern they have, although I can not swear to this personally. I am sure that God made the woman’s fertility cyclical for a good reason, which I hope to bring out in a sec.

I assume Amarick that you do not believe that it is a sin to consummate marriage when a women is infertile.

I also assume that you agree that it is ok to play tennis with your wife, when she is infertile, instead making love, at least unknowingly.

[b] If you have to have as many babies as possible, you would have to chart and consummate your marriage every time she was fertile. Then, she would have to stop all breast feeding immediately (I think at least a majority of moms and doctors see this as a bad thing) so that he fertility comes back with in three months, so that she can again become pregnant. Then you must repeat the process in an assembly line fashion, until the woman’s uterus explodes, or she dies, while she is fertile, but incapable of making it through either the pregnancy or the birthing process. [/b]

If you agree to the above as not the optimal or most loving thing to do, and I think that you must, then you can at least see that the need not have as many babies as the body can immediately handle.

So you would then suggest that the married couple then completely refrain from love making until they are ready to have childern. And that this avoidance of creation, at least for a time, is not bad, but indeed a good. In fact, this abstaining is the betterment of the life of the family.

Here I would have to agree that this is the most sure fire way to avoid pregnancy, total abstinence, for the sake of life.

However what if they could make love, for the sake of the unitive, and not get pregnant again? Would it be ok? I think so, as long as they were doing it (sorry about the pun) for the right reasons.

Now Keep in mind that:

A Contracepted act is always (or at least meant to be) not creative, even if the women would naturally be fertile.

And

That there are is also a unitive act in married sex, even if it is not creative, but only if it is procreative.

Do you see where I am going? I would really appreciate a critique

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 29 2004, 02:56 PM'] contraception is a sin against both purposes of marriage, procreation of course but also union ("i want to unite with you, but keep my fluids to myself if you don't mind, we should put some barrier in between us, but still unite i swear" yeah right)

with NFP every time you have sex, you are open to each other and open to life, you're just having sex less. [/quote]
Al,

[b]NFP users usually have more sex[/b], then those who do not. It also happens that they only have a 5% divorce rate, and have more childern, then those who use contraception.

PSPX

You make good points, NFP is merely a means to a procreative end, if it it not, then it is a means to a contraceptive end.

-James III

[Guest Aluigi]

i bet people who don't use contraception or NFP have the same divorce rate or better

how do they have more sex if they're abstaining for time periods?

[qfnol31]

NFP's good, but only when taught correctly in my opinion. It's not a contraception at all, which is how it often gets taught. What it is is a working with the nature of our bodies God has given us. I've heard it described as God speaks a language through our bodies and NFP is listening to that language.

[SirMyztiq]

As long as you all don't start wanting to ban contraceptives then it's all good.

Humans are animals.
We have insticts just like animals.
We mate in order to create more of us.
We don't have to be in love to mate and sex has never been "always sacred" WE turned it sacred.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 30 2004, 01:30 AM'] As long as you all don't start wanting to ban contraceptives then it's all good. [/quote]
I don't think we should have them, but at the same time I don't think it would be just for a law to ban them, for that's not something that could be enforced I don't think. Maybe you could ban al contraception, but I still think it would be difficult to regulate individual lives.

[quote]Humans are animals.[/quote]

Umm, no. Humans are above the animals. We have rationality, and simpler souls. We're driven by rationality. Metaphysically, we're higher and greater than the animals. Only physically are we similar, but that goes without saying. Metaphysically we're greatly superior.

[quote]We have insticts just like animals.[/quote]

We have Natural Law, reasoning, and yes, concupiscence. They have sensations. Big difference between the two. We have sensations, but are controlled by rationality.

[quote]We mate in order to create more of us.[/quote]

We also mate because it brings us closer together, not an effect for animals. We do it because of the bond (well, women definately do).

[quote]We don't have to be in love to mate and sex has never been "always sacred" WE turned it sacred.[/quote]

Depends on your background. But yet, I see something beyond mating in sex. Tell me that a woman doesn't feel some stronger connection from it. If it was only for procreation, it wouldn't feel so good, and it wouldn't bring couples closer together.

[mark3200]

Probably what the confusion is, is the whole "doctrine develops over time" thing as well as what the US Catholic Church has NOT taught traditionally. I'm with cmom and jmjtina on this one - both PJP2 in Love and Responsibility and Christopher West in all of his books, as well as the current Catechism teach that marital intercourse is intended equally for unity and procreation. One is not more important than the other. My wife and I cannot have children, but we were still married by the Church. Why? Because we're still open to the possiblility of having children. If procreation were more important, or of prime importance, we could not have been married.

There is no way to separate the unifying and procreating aspects of sexual intercourse. Can't do it. Yes, I can look up the items in the Catechism that state as much, but it's really just water under the bridge (plus, I'm too lazy to find all of it online when I really should be putting together my lesson plans for the week).

Personally, I voted "yes", but honestly think we (as in the Church in recent history) have happily ignored the fact that intercourse is/was/has been intended to bind the husband and wife together as well as possibly produce children (I mean, who are we kidding - nothing guarantees a pregnancy each time). Let's not be too holy or silly about this - God created sex and wants us to enjoy it. Why try covering that up?

I doubt the Church really taught the unifying aspect until the laity started to read the Catechism on its own AND PJP2 published Love and Responsibility. PJP2 is no prude.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 30 2004, 03:39 AM'] I don't think we should have them, but at the same time I don't think it would be just for a law to ban them, for that's not something that could be enforced I don't think. Maybe you could ban al contraception, but I still think it would be difficult to regulate individual lives.



Umm, no. Humans are above the animals. We have rationality, and simpler souls. We're driven by rationality. Metaphysically, we're higher and greater than the animals. Only physically are we similar, but that goes without saying. Metaphysically we're greatly superior.



We have Natural Law, reasoning, and yes, concupiscence. They have sensations. Big difference between the two. We have sensations, but are controlled by rationality.



We also mate because it brings us closer together, not an effect for animals. We do it because of the bond (well, women definately do).



Depends on your background. But yet, I see something beyond mating in sex. Tell me that a woman doesn't feel some stronger connection from it. If it was only for procreation, it wouldn't feel so good, and it wouldn't bring couples closer together. [/quote]
Human rationality can only take us so far. Animals have rationality, a low degree of it but it's there. Why do you think dogs run away from cars? Or how are monkeys able to solve complex problems in nature?
Huma rationality is there as long and as much as we use it. Much of it is nothing but instict. That is why look for some place warm when were cold. Humans are animals. We're just smarter.


You really wouldn't know that about animals. And what about one night stands? Sex just for fun? That has nothing to do with bonding. Women are more prone to this because thats the way they have been educated and the way society has portrayed it.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:35 AM'] Human rationality can only take us so far. Animals have rationality, a low degree of it but it's there. Why do you think dogs run away from cars? Or how are monkeys able to solve complex problems in nature? [/quote]
You mix rationality and "senses." Rationality implies that you can grasp concepts such as the Pythagorean Theorem and apply it. Knowing to run from something isn't necessarily rationality as much as a sense. Animals have memories and dreams, etc, but this doesn't imply rationality.

There's a gorilla, Cocoa, who knows what balls are. However, she cannot truly understand the idea of "ballness," but just goes based on "memory." She'll never understand that it's a sphere.

What complex problems do monkeys solve in nature? None of them can do math. They may recognize something as easier, but that is either sense or memory.

No, I don't think memory implies rationality. Your computer has "memory," (I would argue similar to animal memory) and this does not make it a rational creature.

[quote][Human] rationality is there as long and as much as we use it. Much of it is nothing but instict. That is why look for some place warm when were cold. Humans are animals. We're just smarter.[/quote]

Sure we don't use it, but we have that [i]capacity[/i], which animals do not have. [i]Capacity[/i] for reason is what makes us different, for different things can affect our ability to use that capacity at different times.

[quote]You really wouldn't know that about animals. And what about one night stands? Sex just for fun? That has nothing to do with bonding. Women are more prone to this because thats the way they have been educated and the way society has portrayed it.[/quote]

Well, I wouldn't, except for I don't think my dog, after mating, will stick to that one dog. He doesn't understand.

One night stands go against the idea of what sex is for. They do create something wrong in the person, but most of these people don't repent for us to see the side effects. There is an attachment there, but most people try to ignore this.

[kateri05]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 30 2004, 02:30 AM'] As long as you all don't start wanting to ban contraceptives then it's all good.

Humans are animals.
We have insticts just like animals.
We mate in order to create more of us.
We don't have to be in love to mate and sex has never been "always sacred" WE turned it sacred. [/quote]
i would just like to add that banning all contraception WOULD be a good thing. Enforcability isn't an issue. Re-illegalizing abortion wouldn't necessarily be 100% enforcable but it still must be done. Immoral acts shouldn't be legally permissible. Secular law is required to reflect the natural law (which of course, is a manifestation of the Divine law)

[Guest JeffCR07]

yay!