Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: armydoc; klossg
"If sex with the intent of not conceiving is sinful, means (timing vs device) is irrelevant."

But, to repeat: sex with the intent of not conceiving is not sinful. Even if the couple is naturally infertile (as they are for at least 2 weeks of every month), sexual union is still a "good" by which they embody their gift of themselves to each other. The pleasure bond is still there, and still a positive value.

If the Catholic Church taught that married couples can only have sex when they want to have a baby, they wouldn't be allowed to have sex when the woman is pregnant, or post-menopausal, or even in the infertile part of her cycle. This has never been the case.

The church does teach, though, that for an act to be moral, both the intention and the means must be moral. Abstinence is not morally wrong. Is it?

45 posted on 05/12/2006 10:47:53 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing." Ecclesiates 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o
But, to repeat: sex with the intent of not conceiving is not sinful.

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how the act of sex with the express desire not to conceive, employing a method to achieve that end, is "procreative".
49 posted on 05/12/2006 11:12:24 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson