Context of Sex

[HandsAndHands]

I have been taught that sex must always occur within a marriage between two individuals capable of producing life and deepening their relationship through the act. Any sexual act outside this context is immoral. And I can see how sex within this context is at its most meaningful.

However, I do not understand why sex that lacks one of these components is categorically immoral. Are there any arguments as to why sex needs to happen within that “Catholic context,” and never in any other context?

Certainly I see how some of the value of sex is lost when any component is missing, but bearing less good doesn’t necessary mean that such acts are evil.

It also seems odd to say that an imperfect version of a good thing always disrespects the perfect version. It kind of feels like saying that you can never give a rose to someone because it diminishes the value of giving a bouquet of roses. On another note it also seems to imply that sex’s value stems from the symbolism we attach to it, rather than a feature of the act itself

So is the Catholic context an assumption/axiom, or are there arguments for why we should believe this is true?

 

[Trishie]

Welcome to Catholic Answers forums.

For a beginning, to better understand Catholic theology regarding sex and marriage, you may find it helpful to carefully read this page from the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

There are notations on the references below that link to scripture texts and other sources throughout the Catechism.

Kind wishes,

Trishie

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It kind of feels like saying that you can never give a rose to someone because it diminishes the value of giving a bouquet of roses.

That is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Having sex with someone you’re not willing to marry is more like giving someone a bouquet that looks like roses, but may at any point turn into a bouquet of thorns.

 

[fhansen]

I have been taught that sex must always occur within a marriage between two individuals capable of producing life and deepening their relationship through the act. Any sexual act outside this context is immoral. And I can see how sex within this context is at its most meaningful.

However, I do not understand why sex that lacks one of these components is categorically immoral. Are there any arguments as to why sex needs to happen within that “Catholic context,” and never in any other context?

Certainly I see how some of the value of sex is lost when any component is missing, but bearing less good doesn’t necessary mean that such acts are evil.

It also seems odd to say that an imperfect version of a good thing always disrespects the perfect version. It kind of feels like saying that you can never give a rose to someone because it diminishes the value of giving a bouquet of roses. On another note it also seems to imply that sex’s value stems from the symbolism we attach to it, rather than a feature of the act itself

So is the Catholic context an assumption/axiom, or are there arguments for why we should believe this is true?

All evil comes from and is a diminishment of good in some manner or another. At the extreme, as an example, a murderer is attempting to achieve some perceived good (money, power, etc) by eliminating his victim or enemy or competition, but using inappropriate means to achieve his end. Why should we want less than perfection, a lesser good? Why should we settle for sin IOW, seeing as it causes so much grief in our world?

 

[ClearWater]

I have been taught that sex must always occur within a marriage between two individuals capable of producing life and deepening their relationship through the act. Any sexual act outside this context is immoral. And I can see how sex within this context is at its most meaningful.

However, I do not understand why sex that lacks one of these components is categorically immoral. Are there any arguments as to why sex needs to happen within that “Catholic context,” and never in any other context?

Certainly I see how some of the value of sex is lost when any component is missing, but bearing less good doesn’t necessary mean that such acts are evil.

It also seems odd to say that an imperfect version of a good thing always disrespects the perfect version. It kind of feels like saying that you can never give a rose to someone because it diminishes the value of giving a bouquet of roses. On another note it also seems to imply that sex’s value stems from the symbolism we attach to it, rather than a feature of the act itself

So is the Catholic context an assumption/axiom, or are there arguments for why we should believe this is true?

I see on your thread that you didn’t list your religion, so I won’t approach this from a religious perspective but from a practical one.

The reason we believe sex belongs within marriage is that we want to try to promote monogamy, being committed to one person, to try to diminish sexually-transmitted diseases.

Further, pregnancy is a possibility, even when contraception is used, as many will attest. I used to work as a Spanish interpreter, and sometimes I also volunteered at a women’s center. I saw one woman up in the stirrups, saying that she was in the Pill, didn’t think pregnancy was possible.

So, today, a lot of people get pregnant, “by accident”. In the past, you could get pregnant all kinds of ways, but none of them was “by accident”. Now, we have a whole bunch of people in trial marriages and all. Many are there just for sex, alone, have no intention of being there if the woman gets pregnant, will be out the door.

At least with marriage, even though they sometimes fail, there is at least the attempt at commitment. In a Catholic marriage, we are to also accept children, not abort them, say. If we can’t provide for them, we are to give them up for adoption.

With everybody just going out and having sex, we have an epidemic of single mothers, largely due to that. Again, marriage doesn’t guarantee staying together, but it at least is more of a commitment than what some do, like the one-night stands and all.

Also, there is the emotional component of people getting into a sexual relationship. Studies show women begin to produce another hormone which is associated with bonding. However, a lot of these relationships, especially those with no strings or commitments or anything, fall flat, and the woman typically feels used.

We think marriage is an attempt to elevate sexuality to something a little more than just a bodily function shared with a bunch of others. It is an attempt to provide a more stable environment to raise the potential offspring from this sexual union.

Look at these girls who go out, have sex, and their boyfriends leave them, and they are left holding the bag. They will be the first to tell you why commitment is important with sex.

Marriage is an attempt to promote responsibility, both towards the woman and the baby. It is an effort to say, “If you are unwilling to commit to a woman and the potential child, best not to start this”.

 

[marylauravicuna]

It also seems odd to say that an imperfect version of a good thing always disrespects the perfect version. It kind of feels like saying that you can never give a rose to someone because it diminishes the value of giving a bouquet of roses. On another note it also seems to imply that sex’s value stems from the symbolism we attach to it, rather than a feature of the act itself

So is the Catholic context an assumption/axiom, or are there arguments for why we should believe this is true?

Marriage is all or nothing. Here’s a beautiful story of a woman who married someone out of love despite having a tragic accident and ended up experiencing a miracle when the person recovered medically. faithit.com/people-stunned-chose-marry-him-they-said-never-work-3-years-later-couldnt-be-better-ian-larissa/#.U3aJEpaAX7g.facebook
Any sex (rose) prior to one’s eventual marriage, especially with another partner, will diminish the significance of sex in marriage.

 

[edwest2]

I have been taught that sex must always occur within a marriage between two individuals capable of producing life and deepening their relationship through the act. Any sexual act outside this context is immoral. And I can see how sex within this context is at its most meaningful.

However, I do not understand why sex that lacks one of these components is categorically immoral. Are there any arguments as to why sex needs to happen within that “Catholic context,” and never in any other context?

Certainly I see how some of the value of sex is lost when any component is missing, but bearing less good doesn’t necessary mean that such acts are evil.

It also seems odd to say that an imperfect version of a good thing always disrespects the perfect version. It kind of feels like saying that you can never give a rose to someone because it diminishes the value of giving a bouquet of roses. On another note it also seems to imply that sex’s value stems from the symbolism we attach to it, rather than a feature of the act itself

So is the Catholic context an assumption/axiom, or are there arguments for why we should believe this is true?

The following may start off a bit off topic but I think it makes the point quite well.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1124

Sex outside of marriage is merely a release. Sex within a committed relationship means you are ready for the possibility of children. The biggest lie spread over the last 40 years was that sex was for pleasure first, as relationships gradually faded away as a reason to have sex. It’s the other way around. Sex means something in a committed relationship first, and includes the pleasure. There is no separating the the two.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Matt_Collins]

I have been taught that sex must always occur within a marriage between two individuals capable of producing life and deepening their relationship through the act. Any sexual act outside this context is immoral. And I can see how sex within this context is at its most meaningful.

However, I do not understand why sex that lacks one of these components is categorically immoral. Are there any arguments as to why sex needs to happen within that “Catholic context,” and never in any other context?

The two individuals do not have to be “capable of producing life”. The Church has never taught that men or women who are sterile can’t get married and have sex. If, at the time of the wedding, it is known that either the man or the woman is unable to have children, that is NOT an impediment to either marriage or sexual intercourse after the wedding.

If, on the other hand, at the time of the wedding, either the man or the woman is unable to have sexual intercourse, that would invalidate the marriage, and therefore, all sexual activity between them.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The two individuals do not have to be “capable of producing life”. The Church has never taught that men or women who are sterile can’t get married and have sex. If, at the time of the wedding, it is known that either the man or the woman is unable to have children, that is NOT an impediment to either marriage or sexual intercourse after the wedding.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.
One of the components of sex would be missing, the openness to life.

 

[JimG]

This makes absolutely no sense to me.
One of the components of sex would be missing, the openness to life.

One can be open to life, and place no artificial constraints on procreation, and yet pregnancy never occurs. The marital act itself is ordered to procreation by its very nature. If one or both parties is infertile (but not impotent) the union is still open to life–new life will be accepted if God wills it.

But sex outside of marriage is a lie. One makes a promise with his body that his will does not intend to keep.

 

[catholic1seeks]

One can be open to life, and place no artificial constraints on procreation, and yet pregnancy never occurs. The marital act itself is ordered to procreation by its very nature. If one or both parties is infertile (but not impotent) the union is still open to life–new life will be accepted if God wills it.

But sex outside of marriage is a lie. One makes a promise with his body that his will does not intend to keep.

Thank you.

I am still having trouble understanding this concept. Of course, I have heard of this before, and I never really truly comprehended it. If the purpose of the sexual act is for union and procreation and the breaking of either causes the sexual act to be morally wrong, then how can a man and woman have sex – knowing that no children will come from it?

 

[JimG]

Thank you.

I am still having trouble understanding this concept. Of course, I have heard of this before, and I never really truly comprehended it. If the purpose of the sexual act is for union and procreation and the breaking of either causes the sexual act to be morally wrong, then how can a man and woman have sex – knowing that no children will come from it?

Procreation does not occur in every single case in which a fertile and non-contracepting husband and wife engage in marital relations. In fact it can occur in only a limited number of cases. It can only occur at particular times in a woman’s cycle. It cannot occur if she is already pregnant. Openness to life means to place no artificial barrier to procreation, it can not mean that a couple must be certain that every act of marital relations will result in pregnancy! That would be an impossibility. As to fertility, a couple may not even know the status of their fertility, and there is no need to know. All that is needed is that they do not artificially interfere with the possibility of procreation.

 

[DMC12]

I have been taught that sex must always occur within a marriage between two individuals capable of producing life and deepening their relationship through the act. Any sexual act outside this context is immoral. And I can see how sex within this context is at its most meaningful.

i just wanted to say that the capable of producing life means no use of artificial methods like condoms and such, but married sterile persons can have sex also.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Procreation does not occur in every single case in which a fertile and non-contracepting husband and wife engage in marital relations. In fact it can occur in only a limited number of cases. It can only occur at particular times in a woman’s cycle. It cannot occur if she is already pregnant. Openness to life means to place no artificial barrier to procreation, it can not mean that a couple must be certain that every act of marital relations will result in pregnancy! That would be an impossibility. As to fertility, a couple may not even know the status of their fertility, and there is no need to know. All that is needed is that they do not artificially interfere with the possibility of procreation.

This makes more sense. What helped was the reference to pregnancy and the women’s cycle. I appreciate that comparison.

However, those seem to be natural, good, and normal, while infertility is not. Something is not there where it ought to be. So I see a difference.

 

[Matt_Collins]

I am still having trouble understanding this concept… If the purpose of the sexual act is for union and procreation and the breaking of either causes the sexual act to be morally wrong, then how can a man and woman have sex – knowing that no children will come from it?

In the case of a non-contracepting sterile married couple, they are open to new life. It is God who has chosen not to make their union fruitful. But they are not, themselves, putting up any barrier to new life, should God choose to send them a child.

Remember that St. Ann was thought to be sterile. If it were not permissible for her to have intercourse with St. Joachim, then St. John the Baptist would never have been born!

So the teaching that sterile married couples may have intercourse really is directly from scripture.

 

[mommamaree]

In the case of a non-contracepting sterile married couple, they are open to new life. It is God who has chosen not to make their union fruitful. But they are not, themselves, putting up any barrier to new life, should God choose to send them a child.

Remember that St. Ann was thought to be sterile. If it were not permissible for her to have intercourse with St. Joachim, then St. John the Baptist would never have been born!

So the teaching that sterile married couples may have intercourse really is directly from scripture.

St. Ann and St. Joachim were the parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Elizabeth was the mother of St. John the Baptist. Zechariah was his father. Both couples were thought to be infertile, however, until they miraculously conceived.

 

[JimG]

This makes more sense. What helped was the reference to pregnancy and the women’s cycle. I appreciate that comparison.

However, those seem to be natural, good, and normal, while infertility is not. Something is not there where it ought to be. So I see a difference.

But in those instances, a woman is naturally infertile, and it is no sin to engage in marital relations during those times. In fact, a woman is fertile only for limited period of times. (That’s why NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy–or not–by knowledge of the fertile times.) But even permanent infertility is not necessarily incurable, nor is it a bar to a valid marriage or to marital relations. All that is needed is the ability to have marital relations.

 

[Matt_Collins]

St. Ann and St. Joachim were the parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Elizabeth was the mother of St. John the Baptist. Zechariah was his father. Both couples were thought to be infertile, however, until they miraculously conceived.

You’re right! How utterly stupid of me! End of a very long week.

 

[mommamaree]

You’re right! How utterly stupid of me! End of a very long week.

I hope you have a lovely and restful weekend then!