foreplay in the sexual act
#61
(04-14-2011, 06:32 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 11:27 AM)Walty Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:42 AM)Dante Alighieri Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:49 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

Quis gave a good response here, but I might just add that, in laymen's terms, we just have to do our job.  That is acting naturally and morally in regards to sex.  We cannot discount that God performs miracles and can, as with Sarah, bring life even in a sterile woman.  He does not do this with masturbation or contraceptive sex because we are purposefully frustrating the ability for new life to emerge and are rejecting that possibility with our free will.  Intercourse, even while sterile, is open to children.

The events of Sarah and Elizabeth are miraculous, and extraordinary. I agree though, that even for an aged woman, or one whom doctors have said is sterile can surely by the grace of God, conceive. However, a pregnant woman is not the same. A pregnant woman cannot possibly get pregnant until the child conceived is brought forth. I am not questioning the power of God to open the sterile womb, but that is a rare occurrence. It is the issue of pregnancy that still seems unanswered.

I think other posters here have answered your question well. If it doesn't seem to make sense at first, I would recommend thinking about it not from the scientific knowledge of what you know will or won't happen as a result of sexual intercourse but rather from the end to which each action is naturally ordered.

Sexual intercourse between a man and his pregnant wife is not a deliberate or willful frustration of the procreative end of marriage; the couple does nothing differently than it would naturally do to participate in the procreative end of the generative faculties. In this case, it is by God's will that the procreative end of the natural use of the generative faculties (insemination) is not realized. (They are participating in the natural means of procreation. If they don't have a child because of some inhibitory factor, that is not their fault; they aren't doing anything that is against nature.)

Sodomy between two males (or contraception) is a deliberate and willful contravention of the natural procreative end of the generative faculties; the couple (depending on the case) does something differently than it would naturally do to participate in the procreative end of the generative faculties. In this case, it is by the participants' wills that the procreative end of the natural use of the generative faculties (insemination) is not realized. (They are not participating in the natural means of procreation, and when they don't have a child as a result of their sexual activity it won't be because of some natural process that impeded a procreative end of sexual activity with a natural procreative end; there was no possible procreative end to their sexual activity in the first place, regardless of other factors.)

I'm sorry if that is not clear enough, but that is the best I know how to explain it.
Reply
#62
Good job, IMO,  INPEFESS. :thumb:
Reply
#63
Thank you In Nomine Patris Et Filio Et Spritui Sancto. A good summary; as I said in my latest post, I shouldn't even be taking part in this discussion. With all of the posts, it is hard to keep track of the heavy information. I feel as though your post presents an encompassing and persuasive detail of the preceding posts. My questions, though not bearing fruit, are answered well. You continue to provide insightful and to the point comments. Though, don't let the praise go to you head, for it is always In Nomine Patris Et Filio Et Spritui Sancto and for the glory of God.  :)
Reply
#64
(04-14-2011, 08:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Good job, IMO,  INPEFESS. :thumb:

Thank you.

But to give credit where credit is actually do, I think the work has already been done by all of you, really. For some reason, however, he's not understanding it. Perhaps it is the repetitive theological rhetoric that is the cause of the communication barrier. I hope that doesn't sound condescending--I certainly don't intend it to be--but I have to admit that it requires some perceptive adjustment to understand. My head gets spinning just trying to type it correctly and coherently . . . you know, trying to put all of the "natural"'s, "end"'s, and "use"'s in the right place.

Maybe your approach would be better in this situation: Linguistic bluntness.
Reply
#65
(04-14-2011, 08:47 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Maybe your approach would be better in this situation: Linguistic bluntness.

Sometimes one has to resort to that, yes.  Better to try the other way first, though, for obvious reasons.
Reply
#66
(04-14-2011, 08:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Good job, IMO,  INPEFESS. :thumb:

He should be promoted to "final explanation" person. He is very good at explaining things like this.
Reply
#67
(04-14-2011, 06:32 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 11:27 AM)Walty Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:42 AM)Dante Alighieri Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:49 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

Quis gave a good response here, but I might just add that, in laymen's terms, we just have to do our job.  That is acting naturally and morally in regards to sex.  We cannot discount that God performs miracles and can, as with Sarah, bring life even in a sterile woman.  He does not do this with masturbation or contraceptive sex because we are purposefully frustrating the ability for new life to emerge and are rejecting that possibility with our free will.  Intercourse, even while sterile, is open to children.

The events of Sarah and Elizabeth are miraculous, and extraordinary. I agree though, that even for an aged woman, or one whom doctors have said is sterile can surely by the grace of God, conceive. However, a pregnant woman is not the same. A pregnant woman cannot possibly get pregnant until the child conceived is brought forth. I am not questioning the power of God to open the sterile womb, but that is a rare occurrence. It is the issue of pregnancy that still seems unanswered.

There are documented cases of pregnant women ovulating and becoming pregnant with a second child while pregnant with the first
Reply
#68
(04-14-2011, 08:45 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Thank you In Nomine Patris Et Filio Et Spritui Sancto.

You are very welcome. An honest man deserves the honest truth.

Quote:A good summary; as I said in my latest post, I shouldn't even be taking part in this discussion. With all of the posts, it is hard to keep track of the heavy information. I feel as though your post presents an encompassing and persuasive detail of the preceding posts. My questions, though not bearing fruit, are answered well.

Good. I am glad that it helped!

Quote: You continue to provide insightful and to the point comments. Though, don't let the praise go to you head, for it is always In Nomine Patris Et Filio Et Spritui Sancto and for the glory of God.  :)

Yes. My username continually (and non-coincidentally) serves as a reminder to me to do all for the glory of God--to take nothing but to give all. Thank you for your reminder of this. It is a good example of fraternal charity.
Reply
#69
(04-14-2011, 08:49 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 08:47 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Maybe your approach would be better in this situation: Linguistic bluntness.

Sometimes one has to resort to that, yes.  Better to try the other way first, though, for obvious reasons.

Yes, I was thinking the next step was going to require PM . . .

I think it could be scandalous to continue on the forum with the alternative method.
Reply
#70
(04-14-2011, 08:49 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 08:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Good job, IMO,  INPEFESS. :thumb:

He should be promoted to "final explanation" person. He is very good at explaining things like this.

You are generous with your compliments.

Thank you, and we can both thank God.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)