Or maybe a statement from a Pope:

No law of man can abolish the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way set aside the CHIEF PURPOSE OF MATRIMONY established in the beginning by the authority of God: "Increase and multiply."(CAPS added).

- Pope Leo XIII
Enyclical Letter Rerum Novarum, 1891
at http://www.ylcss.edu.hk/Intranet/E-Class/life/CATHOLIC/ENCYCL/RN.HTMhttp://www.ylcss.edu.hk/Intranet/E-Class/life/CATHOLIC/ENCYCL/RN.HTM

Apparently the "unitive" and "procreative" aspects of marriage aren't "equal" as you claim. LH. Or was Pope Leo not being "official"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course I added nothing - I was not trying to put words into your mouth, merely to clarify the argument (both for myself and the reader).

The rebuttal of your "procreation is the purpose of sex/marriage" premise should answer the latter part of your post.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps a statement from the now-Pope would be OFFICIAL enough:

Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, ABLE TO TRANSMIT LIFE; AND SO it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.(CAPS added)

- Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pa ...[text shortened]... nal Ratzinger 1986

At http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=1758685046899&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE

Originally posted by no1marauder
Tell it to Leo.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No problems whatsoever.

Pope Leo does not teach the procreation is the sole purpose of marriage - just that it is the primary purpose. If I've stated or implied that it is not the case, then I withdraw those specific statements. ...[text shortened]... nding a teaching about marriage in an encyclical about Capitalism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd say I've sufficiently mopped up the floor with your arguments by using OFFICIAL Church documents which state the purpose of marriage is procreation and sex that cannot "transmit life" is a grave sin (like homosexual sex).

You'd be dead wrong:

1. The Church documents you cite do not state that "the [sole] purpose of marriage is procreation". The 'sole' bit is important because that is the only way you can argue that the use of marriage/sex for purposes other than procreation is sinful in the eyes of the Church. You don't need a doctorate in logic to see that.

2. That the Church teaches that the primary/chief purpose of marriage/sex is procreation does not automatically make it the sole purpose. There is atleast one other purpose (the unitive) that is still important - though perhaps not as important.

3. Even the citation from the letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refers to both aspects (the unitive and the procreative) of the sexual act. It is the absence of both aspects that effectively makes practising homosexuality sinful. Read the passage again.

To your ridiculous "lust and sin" "point" I'll repeat the Roman Catholic Cathecism:

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Quoting it again isn't going to change anything - I read it fine the first time around.

Just to summarise:

1. Sex has two aspects - unitive and procreative. The latter is (perhaps) the more important of the two. When a married couple is open to both aspects in the act of sex, they are committing no sin.

2. If a couple is open to the former but not the latter (and not due to reasons of natural or unavoidable infertility), then they are committing a sin - that of contraception.

3. If a couple is open to neither, then they are committing a sin - that of lust.

4. If the couple are not married to each other, then they are committing a sin - that of adultery or fornication (as the case may be).

(2), (3) and (4) are all sinful, but only (3) and specific cases of (4) are lustful.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I'd say I've sufficiently mopped up the floor with your arguments by using OFFICIAL Church documents which state the purpose of marriage is procreation and sex that cannot "transmit life" is a grave sin (like homosexual sex).

You'd be dead wrong:

1. The Church documents you cite do n ...[text shortened]... may be).

(2), (3) and (4) are all sinful, but only (3) and specific cases of (4) are lustful.[/b]

Originally posted by no1marauder
The sin of pride is a terrible one; I guess you cannot admit you were wrong.

I'd say the same of you, but I think you genuinely cannot see the lacunae in your reasoning.

Originally posted by no1marauder
An approved document says the "natural law purpose of sex is procreation"

This has already been dealt with in Objs II.1 and II.2 (a) from the preceding page.

Originally posted by no1marauder
and your papal encyclical relies on natural law

Several objections:

1. So?
2. The encyclical does not draw solely from natural law - nn. 41, 50 etc. draw from divine law as well.
3. The subject of the encyclical is the relationship between capital/capitalists and labour/labourers. What did you expect?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Church documents clearly state the purpose of marriage is raising children and procreation, but that's not good enough for you.

It's not good enough because it's simply not true.

The Church documents you've cited clearly state that a purpose (the primary and chief purpose, even) of marriage is procreation and rearing children - not the [sole/only] purpose. As I wrote before, without proving that, you cannot proceed further with your argument.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And actually what I said was that non-procreative sex was "lustful" not sinful

If you had said "sinful", there would've been no disagreement.

Originally posted by no1marauder
and again, READ the Cathecism this time:

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

What's the word between "procreative" and "unitive"? Is it "or"? Or is it "and/or"? Nope; it's "and"! Both have to be present or the sexual pleasure is mere lust.

I would advise you to take your own advice - read that statement from the Catechism (sp!) again. It does not say (paraphrased, of course) that both have to be present or the sexual pleasure is mere lust; it says that both have to be absent for sexual pleasure to be lust.

Consider the following sentence:

"I feel completely lonely when isolated from friends and family."

Does the author imply that he would still feel lonely if he were near his friends but not his family (or vice-versa)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's why homosexual sex is lust; surely homosexuals couple can (and do) have sex for "unitive" purposes i.e. to strengthen their bond

Let's look at your own statement of the Church definition of "unitive" purposes:

By "unitive" purposes, the RCC is referring to the strengthening of the marriage bond through sex.

Since "marriage exists solely between a man and a woman" ("Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons", Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), it follows that, in same-sex unions, there is no marriage bond to be strengthened and hence unitive purposes cannot be fulfilled.

Originally posted by no1marauder
but, like Cardinal Ratzinger said, they can't "transmit life".

Read the whole sentence again:

"Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. "

The complementary nature of the sexes required for union (and hence, unitive purposes) is made explicit here. It is the absence of both unitive and procreative aspects (the clause beginning "and so ..." refers to the whole previous clause, not just the final phrase) that makes homosexual activity sinful.

Cheers,

LH

"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children".

Second Vatican Council - Quoted in the Humanae Vitae


"Likewise, if they consider the matter, they must admit that an act of mutual love, which is detrimental to the faculty of propagating life, which God the Creator of all, has implanted in it according to special laws, is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life."

- Humanae Vitae


The Church objects to homosexual sex because they can't transmit life" which is the natural purpose of sex. Your argument is circular as regards the "unitive" purpose and only shows that the unitive purpose is subservient to the main purpose of marriage/sex. That's what the Church consistently says and you are being disingenous to claim otherwise.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Marriage ... Humanae Vitae

You can quote all of Humanae Vitae if you like, but it won't change the logical validity of your position unless you alter one of your premises.

The Church objects to homosexual sex because they can't transmit life" which is the natural purpose of sex.

As yet, you've been unable to establish that the Church objects to homosexual sex solely because it cannot transmit life. If anything, your citations (when read in full) imply the opposite - it is the absence of both unitive and procreative aspects that makes homosexual sex morally disordered.

Your argument is circular as regards the "unitive" purpose

A circular argument is one consisting of statements A1, A2, ... An such that A1 depends on A2 etc. and An depends on A1. Can you demonstrate that my argument is circular?

and only shows that the unitive purpose is subservient to the main purpose of marriage/sex.

I don't question that the unitive purpose is less important ("subservient" is just appealing to emotion - now who's guilty of sophistry?).

That's what the Church consistently says and you are being disingenous to claim otherwise.

As I said before, if I have claimed otherwise, I withdraw my statement.

Now, do you plan to answer any of my objections to the logic of your arguments?

LH

Originally posted by Nemesio
The term 'directly prevent conception' is the problem. Having conjugals during the infertile
period is just that: and effort to directly prevent conception. It is simply one of a variety of
means.

It is different from other means in that, unlike other means, it does not alter the nature of the act itself.


'God' doesn't make pregnancy happen; it's not something that has to be ordained in heaven
at a given moment. There are certain conditions. The woman has to be fertile and the man
has to have motile sperm. If you only have maritals during the infertile period you are [b]directly
inhibiting conception. You can make the claim that, if its 'God's' Diving Will, the couple
in question will become pregnant, but so too will a broken condom or expired spermicide or
whatever.[/b]

I'm not claiming the latter. However, in having maritals during the infertile period one is not directly inhibiting conception because one is not altering the natural processes that cause, and result from, conception.

I consider it abominable that the Church requires, as an expression of a couple's 'true and
authentic love' they are obligated to deny the woman's [b]NATURAL and healthy libido
because (for obvious biological reasons) it happens during the fertile part of her cycle. There
is nothing natural about this.[/b]

They are obligated to deny nothing - they choose to. Further, the Church teaches that such a decision cannot be reached lightly - it must have a just cause. I do not consider it particularly misogynistic or abominable because it places a strain on the man as well. And, in my experience, it is usually the men who find sexual restraint harder to digest than women.

That said, I'm a man and should really leave it to the women who've practised NFP to say whether they find it hateful or helpful to them:

http://www.godspy.com/life/NaturalWoman.cfm
http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/almostcost.php
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=10275

N.B.: The last two are actually written by couples.

Furthermore, while you've certainly provided information about why the Church holds Her
position on this issue, I've not yet seen any Biblical support for such a claim. I was always
under the suspicion that Doctrine was supported, at least loosely, by Scripture (e.g., the
Immaculate Conception, the Trinity, how many Sacraments, &c).

There are a number of Biblical references in the Catholic.com article I cited in my discussion with no1. Here's the link again:

http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

I'll take a look at those links you provided.

Thanks,

LH

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It is different from other means in that, unlike other means, it does not alter the nature of the act itself.

From http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14).

The so-called natural method similarly strives to make procreation impossible. It strives
with approximately equal success as condom use. It is done so 'in anticipation of' intercourse;
that is, the couple 'times' their sexual acts in coordination with her 'rhythm.' That the timing
is over the course of a month, rather than the extra 10 seconds it takes to open a condom
wrapper and apply it is a difference of degree, not substance.

In both cases, the couple is planning not to conceive, that the sex act is intended not
to procreate. The method is the only difference, the means and ends are the same.

I'm not claiming the latter. However, in having maritals during the infertile period one is not [i]directly inhibiting conception because one is not altering the natural processes that cause, and result from, conception.[/i]

What it is doing is manipulating those natural processes such that the woman is required
to avoid sexual relations precisely when her body is telling her she ought to have them.

This is unnatural. It is a denial of her natural libido. If 'nature' is so important to
the RCC with respect to conjugals, then it would acknowledge that the woman is required to
deny the very nature of her sexual instincts.

They are obligated to deny nothing - they choose to. Further, the Church teaches that such a decision cannot be reached lightly - it must have a just cause.

They are obligated to deny those urges if they don't want to engage in 'individual disobedience'
(as per the article you cited). They are obligated if they want to remain 'Roman Catholics in
good standing,' so to speak.

I do not consider it particularly misogynistic or abominable because it places a strain on the man as well. And, in my experience, it is usually the men who find sexual restraint harder to digest than women.

This is baloney, LH. The man is getting the full bounty of his pleasure. Certainly you are
aware that conjugals generally complete when the 'man is done.' His desire is fully met. A
man's libido is not precisely as cyclical as a woman's and, consequently, it will very often go
fulfilled. The man only suffers when his cycle coincides with the woman's. Otherwise, he is
free to receive satisfaction.

The woman, on the other hand, is expected to always deny the height of her libidic urges.
She is always expected to refrain from sexual relations (given that masturbation and oral
pleasure is similarly forbidden by the RCC) when her sexual desires are at their peak.

As such, I consider the policy misogynistic, for it unduly discriminates against the woman. And,
as I said, I feel that this is a 'carry-over' from the days when the Church deemed sexual pleasure
to be the sinful aspect of procreation rather than an 'added blessing' (not that this was official
Church policy, but the product of faulty teaching from within the Church).

[i]That said, I'm a man and should really leave it to the women who've practised NFP to say whether they find it hateful or helpful to them:

http://www.godspy.com/life/NaturalWoman.cfm
http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/almostcost.php
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=10275

N.B.: The last two are actually written by couples.[/b]

Suffice it to say that I am utterly unswayed by sites which are demonstrably Catholic-oriented,
such as the ones you cited. The studies I cited were not interested in morality, they were
interested in the natural and biological aspects of a woman's cycle and libido. The
placebo effect is very strong, as you well know, and if people have convinced themselves that
their marriage was fixed by exercising self-control, then good for them. That contraception
necessarily causes a rift in a marriage is absurd, and the claim that the introduction of
contraception has led to the 'loose sexual morality' in the 60s is not only silly, but fallacious
(remember, contraception has been around since 1900 BCE...).

One must examine the history of marriage (and, consequently, the role and significance
of divorce) to understand what the 'free love' movement was all about. One must recognize
that marriage for 'love' was not the norm in the 50s. One must realize that sex was a social
obligation for the woman (to fulfill her man). One must realize the role that social inequalities
which marked the genders played in sexuality. This article's bold claim that the RCC 'predicted
grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception'
is outrageous by any historian's standards.

Sexuality is an integral part of marriage. A couple must have a healthy sexuality in order
to have a healthy marriage. And, necessarily, each member of the couple must feel that
their sexuality is both respected and attended to in order to be sexually healthy. If one
member of the couple is always expected to deny the demands of his/her natural urges,
there are going to be problems.

There are a number of Biblical references in the Catholic.com article I cited in my discussion with no1.

I note that the only Scriptural reference even loosely associated with contraception is
the Onan reference. I am utterly unconvinced by the idea that, because God imposed a stiffer
penalty on Onan, there was more than just not fulfilling his duty as a brother-in-law. There are
countless examples of penalties 'enacted by God' which are wildly out of proportion with the crimes
committed, as well as countless acts of forgiveness which seem to be unjust or overly merciful.
To extrapolate that a husband and wife ought not to use 21st-century contraception from the Onan
scenario is a far reach.

Furthermore, that 'Apostolic Tradition' frowned upon the practice proves nothing; by that point, St
Paul had already set up his dichotomy between spirit and flesh, and that denial of the latter led to
the exaltation of the former. They were simply following in the tradition of Scripture and wildly
exaggerating upon it (hence the highly ascetic Orthodox monastaries, as well as the various
heresies which arose in the first few centuries). (I find it wildly amusing that the article would cite
John Calvin, who was viciously anti-Catholic, and John Wesley as supporting positions. Both of
them advocated a very Pauline mindset of physical denial/spiritual enrichment which is not
endorsed by the Church whence stem their opinions on sexual relations.)

This article is not helpful in a sound defense of either the idea that NFP is the slightest bit natural
(it's clearly not) or that the Church's stance on contraception or that such a stance is even remotely
supported by Biblical precedent. That I can find no historic source for this prohibition in Jewish
literature (which is extensive), I feel is very telling, that there is no Biblical precedent.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]It is different from other means in that, unlike other means, it does not alter the nature of the act itself.

From http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp

[i]Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in ...[text shortened]... re (which is extensive), I feel is very telling, that there is no Biblical precedent.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
It is done so 'in anticipation of' intercourse;
that is, the couple 'times' their sexual acts in coordination with her 'rhythm.'

How can it be in anticipation of intercourse if no intercourse occurs?

That the timing
is over the course of a month, rather than the extra 10 seconds it takes to open a condom
wrapper and apply it is a difference of degree, not substance.

Again, not so. In one case, the sexual act occurs (at a given time); in the other it does not.

In both cases, the couple is planning not to conceive, that the sex act is intended not
to procreate. The method is the only difference, the means and ends are the same.

That is self-contradictory. If the methods are different, then the means are different and vice-versa. The end may be the same - but you know that Christian ethics are not consequentialist.

If 'nature' is so important to
the RCC with respect to conjugals, then it would acknowledge that the woman is required to
deny the very nature of her sexual instincts.

Remember once again - no couple is REQUIRED to plan the birth of their children. In fact, the Church teaches that there has to be a substantive reason for doing so. A scenario where both husband and wife act in full accord with both their individual natural drives and the nature of the act of sex is one the Church would be perfectly happy with.

This is baloney, LH. The man is getting the full bounty of his pleasure.

As an aside, what is the Christian man to do for the 6-9 months his wife is pregnant? Would you argue that, since he must not deny his natural urges, that he must seek pleasure elsewhere?

The woman, on the other hand, is expected to always deny the height of her libidic urges.

Nope. Only if she does not want to get pregnant.

Suffice it to say that I am utterly unswayed by sites which are demonstrably Catholic-oriented,
such as the ones you cited.

Then please feel free to cite your own. I was actually searching for anecdotes from women who were disgruntled with NFP when I found these (needless to say, I did not find what I was looking for - the closest I got was a woman who said she was quite happy using contraception with her husband and never planned to try NFP).

I'm a man and (from all the indications I have - correct me if I'm wrong) so are you. Neither of us can truly claim to be subject-matter experts on the feelings of women. So why not let the women speak for themselves?

The studies I cited were not interested in morality, they were
interested in the [b]natural and biological aspects of a woman's cycle and libido.[/b]

But we are discussing matters of morality. If you want to stick to the science, you will simply have to say "this is the period when the woman is most libidinous" and end at that. The answer to the "so what?" is a moral matter. The studies you cite do not deal with that. Albeit anecdotally, the articles I cited do.

That contraception
necessarily causes a rift in a marriage is absurd, and the claim that the introduction of
contraception has led to the 'loose sexual morality' in the 60s is not only silly, but fallacious
(remember, contraception has been around since 1900 BCE...).

And the sexual morality of Ancient Egypt and Rome is not something to write home about. Simply saying that the claim is silly and fallacious is not enough - you need to demonstrate it. In other words, you need to provide examples of societies where contraception was commonly used but sexual morality was not "loose" (define it in any reasonable manner you please - I would take it to be a period where casual sex and sex outside marriage are the exceptions and not the norm).

This article's bold claim that the RCC 'predicted
grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception'
is outrageous by any historian's standards.

Once again, you need to demonstrate why that is so - not merely state it.

Furthermore, that 'Apostolic Tradition' frowned upon the practice proves nothing;

It proves that the Church was opposed to the practice from the very beginning; that it was not some new doctrine cooked up by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s. It refutes the notions of certain denominations who permit contraception but claim that they function in accordance with the teachings of the Early Church (before the "Fall" or whatever it is they think happened with the Catholic Church later).

This article is not helpful in a sound defense of either the idea that NFP is the slightest bit natural
(it's clearly not) or that the Church's stance on contraception or that such a stance is even remotely
supported by Biblical precedent.

As you well know, not all doctrines in the Church come from the Bible - we are not a sola scriptura body.

That I can find no historic source for this prohibition in Jewish
literature (which is extensive), I feel is very telling, that there is no Biblical precedent.

What do Jewish commentators have to say about the sin of Onan?

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/sex_sexuality/Overview_Judaism_And_Sexuality/Purpose_And_Meaning/Sex_Contraception_Isaacs.htm
http://www.mum.org/contrace.htm

From both the Jewish and the Christian traditions, the sin of Onan has always been traditionally interpreted as dealing with (male) contraception. It is not enough for you to say that you find it unconvincing - you need to demonstrate it.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2879/sinofonan.html

You say there are plenty of cases where the wrath of God appears disproportionate to the crime committed. Cite some instances. What are the traditional interpretations of those passages?

I post this for Lucifershammer from the Archbishop of Denver. I ask him if he agrees that it accurately states Church teaching. If so, I will proceed from there to make my "closing argument" that the purpose of sex is procreation according to the RCC:

This is what the Church means when she teaches that Catholic married love is by its nature both unitive and procreative -- not either/or.

12. But why can't a married couple simply choose the unitive aspect of marriage and temporarily block or even permanently prevent its procreative nature? The answer is as simple and radical as the Gospel itself. When spouses give themselves honestly and entirely to each other, as the nature of married love implies and even demands, that must include their whole selves -- and the most intimate, powerful part of each person is his or her fertility. Contraception not only denies this fertility and attacks procreation; in doing so, it necessarily damages unity as well. It is the equivalent of spouses saying: "I'll give you all I am -- except my fertility; I'll accept all you are -- except your fertility." This withholding of self inevitably works to isolate and divide the spouses, and unravel the holy friendship between them . . . maybe not immediately and overtly, but deeply, and in the long run often fatally for the marriage.

13. This is why the Church is not against "artificial" contraception. She is against all contraception. The notion of "artificial" has nothing to do with the issue. In fact, it tends to confuse discussion by implying that the debate is about a mechanical intrusion into the body's organic system. It is not. The Church has no problem with science appropriately intervening to heal or enhance bodily health. Rather, the Church teaches that all contraception is morally wrong; and not only wrong, but seriously wrong. The covenant which husband and wife enter at marriage requires that all intercourse remain open to the transmission of new life. This is what becoming "one flesh" implies: complete self-giving, without reservation or exception, just as Christ withheld nothing of Himself from His bride, the Church, by dying for her on the cross. Any intentional interference with the procreative nature of intercourse necessarily involves spouses' withholding themselves from each other and from God, who is their partner in sacramental love. In effect, they steal something infinitely precious -- themselves -- from each other and from their Creator.

http://www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/of_human_life.htm