I’d like to raise anew the question of the connection between love and sex. In particular, why is sexual pleasure necessary in the first place? It is conceivable that the procreative aspect of marriage could take place without sexual pleasure. For example, it is not an established biological fact that female sexual pleasure facilitates conception. And, arguably,in a different biological world, the emission of sperm could take place without male sexual pleasure.
Also it would seem that the unitive aspect of marriage could occur without sexual pleasure.
So why did God insert sexual pleasure into the equation?
If this is an inappropriate subject, I will cease and desist. But I think JPII’s theology of the body places particular weight on martial sexual pleasure, arguing that it involves a unique personal disclosure of husband to wife, and wife to husband, thus, that it is “cognitive”, with its own “intentionality” (to speak in phenomenological terms). As Genesis puts it, Adam “knew” Eve.
Your typo makes it sound as if soldiers are involved in the proceedings! Forgive me but I couldn’t resist that remark.
Some species do reproduce without it but pleasure is certainly an incentive to mate, without which there would be far fewer births. But - as you imply - it is simplistic to regard pleasure as merely a device for attaining a goal. The world is full of luxuries which are not essential for survival. Hunger and thirst impel us to eat and drink whether or not we enjoy the taste of food and liquid nourishment. Colours are not necessary because shades of grey are sufficient to enable life to continue. The beauty and richness of the universe reveal the power and glory of our Creator:
“Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty.”
Wordsworth’s words refer to the city of London - as it was in his lifetime - but they are even more applicable to the wonders of nature. The glorious feathers of the peacock are not due to the blind meanderings of mechanistic processes. They are certainly a device for attracting the female yet they are far more than that. They are evidence of the creativity of living beings even when they are not fully aware of what they are doing. The peacock obviously enjoys displaying his plumage - without always needing to succeed in his aim - but the act of mating is the ice on the cake!
If this is the case with birds how much more must it be true of persons in whom, as DH Lawrence remarked, the journey is towards the other
soul. Adam “knew” Eve - and Eve knew Adam - because love is the highest form of knowledge. Physical unity reflects spiritual unity which embraces every aspect of personal existence: intellectual, affective and volitional. In other words reason, emotion and will are all blended in an ecstasy unique in human experience. For most people this occurs in when the bodies of a man and woman who love each other are sexually united but it also occurs when a man or woman are spiritually united to God.
One of the most vivid depictions of this mystical state is Bernini’s sculpture
the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. It was based on her description of her vision of an angel plunging a golden spear into her heart:
“The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.”
Some art critics in our sex-obsessed society have dismissed her experience as the climax of a frustrated nun, thereby demonstrating that their mental horizon is restricted to the things of this world. The reality of spiritual joy and fulfilment in the presence of God are quite beyond the comprehension of those who believe we are animals without a soul. There is a far more realistic assessment:
"Robert Harbison, however, has expressed his doubt that Bernini, a follower of the mystical exercises of followers of
St. Ignatius of Loyola, would have intended to depict here an episode of lust fulfilled. Instead, Bernini aims to express the facial and body equivalents of a state of
divine joy: “It is an astonishing passage that the post-Freudian reader cannot help sniggering at—doesn’t the nun realize she is describing mainly sexual longings? Indeed, a few lines later she recognizes that it is like bodily seduction, but only as an opening or avenue for another kind of experience.
Human sexuality or even the senses cannot have the primacy for Teresa or Bernini which they do for us. The shocking reciprocal movement which grabs our attention so forcibly is not intended as sensational; it aims to jar us into another place entirely.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_Saint_Teresa
In those days people were not exposed to the sexploitation that so often makes sex a substitute for religion - and also makes them think religion is a substitute for sex!