(August 10, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe the means of doing it was not.

Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.

You know this gives me an idea, if the act of producing life itself is what makes sex sacred in your eyes then what about when the act is committed between a husband and wife without the intention of reproduction? Would that not also be a violation of the sanctity of sex? If not, this would bring into question just what IS the basis for violating the sanctity of sex. If two straight people can have sex without the intention or perhaps the capability of reproduction and not have it be unholy, why would two people of the same gender who can't procreate through natural means be any less capable of getting jiggy with it and avoid committing blasphemy all the same? 

I realize you don't intend to morally proselytize to anybody that disagrees with you and if gays want to cozy up to each other behind closed doors, it's no skin off your back, you're just sharing your personal beliefs on how you feel about sex and marriage. This is just some food for thought (whether you wish for it to be a potato, sandwich, or something else I leave to you).

Regardless of whether people have sex to make babies or not, sex is still the act that brings forth new life, and is thus a holy act. This doesn't mean that infertile couples shouldn't have sex or that every time a couple has sex they should be trying to have a baby. But it does mean that sex is holy and should stay in the context that is true to its nature.

Those are very good questions. btw. Catholic theologians and Popes have written entire books to explain the philosophy and theology behind the Church's teaching on sexual morality. My short, condensed little 3 sentence version above cannot even begin to do justice to your questions and to the topic at hand.

And your second paragraph is right on. Thanks for recognizing this. :-)

(August 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Do you think I lack concern for human beings?

(not sure if that's what you're saying, so sorry if not)

As for your second part, I don't know what to say. If you view my belief regarding this the same way you would view someone saying it's wrong to take a pill to save a life because it's the wrong color, then that's how you see it and that's fine. I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way, and that you possibly think little of me because of it, but you are entitled to your own thoughts of course.

Sometimes I wonder whether you want to misinterpret what I write.
No no no, you have shown that you have plenty of concern for your fellow human beings. I'm saying that some of the views you defend here are apparently completely disconnected from concerns for the well being of human beings. Do you understand the difference between me pointing that out as opposed to accusing you as a person of lack of humanity, which I don't?

Case in point: your issues with IVF do not primarily originate from concerns how to make people happy and healthy.And no, I don't think you would reject medicine because of the pill color - that was sn analogy (but if the church would teach it so, you presumablywould!)

I'm afraid I don't really understand the difference. How can I have concern for people, and have views that lack concern for people at the same time?

As for your second point, I agree that IVF would make someone happy if they want a kid of their own, though I fail to see how it makes them healthy. Something that makes a person happy isn't necessarily the moral thing. But that's beside the point. If we're talking about concern for humanity, I still think adoption is better for humanity as a whole.

(I also don't like that you're making the assumption that I blindly follow the Church )

(August 10, 2015 at 5:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (I also don't like that you're making the assumption that I blindly follow the Church )

Sometimes you give that impression. I wanted to point out earlier that you don't seem to reflect on what the church says. If it says, something is immoral, you don't seem to ask why. And sometimes you give the impression of having an inner conflict with that.

(August 10, 2015 at 6:02 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 5:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (I also don't like that you're making the assumption that I blindly follow the Church )

Sometimes you give that impression. I wanted to point out earlier that you don't seem to reflect on what the church says. If it says, something is immoral, you don't seem to ask why. And sometimes you give the impression of having an inner conflict with that.

How do you figure I have never asked why?

(August 10, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do you figure I have never asked why?

Sorry, I didn't make myself entirely clear. What I meant was, you don't seem to ask yourself why. You give the appearance of taking their explanation at face value. Which, in my opinion causes some inner conflicts. Going by your post record as the only source, of course.

(August 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do you figure I have never asked why?

Sorry, I didn't make myself entirely clear. What I meant was, you don't seem to ask yourself why. You give the appearance of taking their explanation at face value. Which, in my opinion causes some inner conflicts. Going by your post record as the only source, of course.

I'm sorry, I don't see how "asking myself why" is any different than "asking why." 

With all respect, I just don't know how you can deduce this about me through reading the forums.

(August 10, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: With all respect, I just don't know how you can deduce this about me through reading the forums.

I said, going by your post record as the only source. And there's a difference between asking oneself why, reflecting on a matter, and taking an explanation at face value. There's a very big difference.

(August 10, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Exian Wrote: So that brings it back to just being about the act. Also, it brings it back to me not knowing the difference. Haha

Which is my whole point in Post #391 which still hasn't been addressed, so I guess I'll just quote myself here:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: If a thing like human life is sacred despite the morality of the method of conception, then what purpose does distinguishing between the morality of the methods of conception have?  Why make the distinction?  Why does it matter whether a child is conceived through a loving sex act, or a violent one, or through medical intervention if the end result is still a "sacred" child?
...
If there is no negative impact from the method of conception on the child, then why should there be a distinction made about the "sacredness" of how that child was conceived?  This is what I was saying before: Saying that the act of conception through love-motivated sex is sacred strongly implies that that sacredness is somehow passed along to the child and imbues them with sanctity.  If it doesn't, then why make the distinction about the sanctity of the conception?

(August 10, 2015 at 5:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Regardless of whether people have sex to make babies or not, sex is still the act that brings forth new life

No, conception (a sperm fertilizing an egg and being implanted in the uterus) is the thing that brings forth new life.  Before the advent of modern medicine, sex was merely the method by which conception could occur.

Which brings us back to Alex K's question about vaccines, or more broadly, medical intervention full stop.  Is it because you don't classify dying as "sacred" that you draw the line that you do between processes that create and interventions that prevent death?

If you believe in God and heaven, dying should be one of the most sacred things anyone could possibly do because it would be the process by which a living human being (and whatever soul-substance you believe in) would be whisked away to its afterlife and, presumably, to God himself (especially if you're the type of theist who believes that when you are dying it's really God calling you from beyond to join him), so by medically intervening in the natural process of death (through vaccination to prevent fatal diseases, prolonging life by performing resuscitation, preventing infections, etc.) you would be intervening on a person's journey to God.

So what's the deal?

Quote:Regardless of whether people have sex to make babies or not, sex is still the act that brings forth new life, and is thus a holy act. This doesn't mean that infertile couples shouldn't have sex or that every time a couple has sex they should be trying to have a baby. But it does mean that sex is holy and should stay in the context that is true to its nature.

So you're saying that it's because sex is "the" act that creates new life (which is already an incorrect statement since IVF also creates new life and, under this definition of what makes an act holy, would count as such) and then you're saying that even though it's "the" holy act that creates new life, you don't actually have to create new life in order for that act to be holy... but the possibility of creating new life is necessary??

Unpack this statement for me, 'cause I don't get it.

(August 10, 2015 at 6:15 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: With all respect, I just don't know how you can deduce this about me through reading the forums.

I said, going by your post record as the only source. And there's a difference between asking oneself why, reflecting on a matter, and taking an explanation at face value. There's a very big difference.

I just don't understand how you can deduce, from the 2 months I've been here, that I have never in my life asked myself why and reflected on these matters. Not sure what you mean by taking an explanation at face value, though.

(August 10, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 10:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To answer your question, it says nothing about the human life. Only about the act itself. In this case, I suppose it would be rape. Yes, rape is immoral, but any innocent human life that is conceived through rape is just as sacred and precious as any other life. How a person was conceived has no bearing on that person whatsoever.

If a thing like human life is sacred despite the morality of the method of conception, then what purpose does distinguishing between the morality of the methods of conception have?  Why make the distinction?  Why does it matter whether a child is conceived through a loving sex act, or a violent one, or through medical intervention if the end result is still a "sacred" child?

Like I said, we think it's immoral to take something holy outside the purity of its context. And to us, that's what IVF does.