Defense of unitive and procreative nature of sexual intercourse in marriage

[hamburglar]

What is the defense for the belief that the marital act of sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What is the defense for the belief that the marital act of sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative?

Gen 1:28; 2:23f.

 

[dmar198]

What is the defense for the belief that the marital act of sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative?

Humanity didn’t develop sex for pleasure, but for babies. Pleasure was developed to encourage more reproduction. Therefore to have sex for mere pleasure (contra. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5) is to neglect the purpose of sex and do injury to nature. It is, in other words, an abuse of one’s body, and therefore a grave evil.

 

[newbetx]

What is the defense for the belief that the marital act of sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative?

The CCC does a reasonable job on defining this. I think there have been some very good posts on this and I’ll try to look them up. Key point is procreative does not mean “trying to make a baby” as some will have others believe. So if the question is, can you have sex without trying to conceive? Yes! It just can’t be a contracepted act.

Reference the CCC… The Fecundity of marriage.

My favorite reference is Christopher West’s books on TOB. Such as TOB for Beginners. There are others, but CW’s are the ones I’m most familiar with. Any of the TOB books should cover this very well.

 

[Spirithound]

What is the defense for the belief that the marital act of sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative?

Well, “unitive” means “with a partner”
The sexual relationship is the deepest one that we as humans form. To form that type of relationship with oneself is gravely self-centred.

 

[dove51]

I believe Proverbs 5:18-19 is a defense of the unitive, or loving, aspect of sex, as well as the book of the Song of Solomon. If anyone knows better about these parts of the Bible, please correct me.

And of course there are many, many places in the Bible where the procreational aspect is praised. My favorite is Psalm 127:3-5.

 

[Dredgemate]

Another great resource is the book “Love and Responsibility” written by JPII when he was still a Cardinal.

Simply put, without the procreative nature of the union, the entire act is simply pleasure for pleasure’s sake; utilitarian thinking that ultimately reduces the person as an object for pleasure.

 

[hamburglar]

My reason for posting this was for helping to explain why procedures like in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are not moral.

So the defense is that it is not the natural act of marriage that God intends. You are separating the unitive nature of sexual intercourse, and doing it in an unnatural way.

So how does this explain why the aforementioned procedures are not licit?

 

[bilop]

My reason for posting this was for helping to explain why procedures like in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are not moral.

So the defense is that it is not the natural act of marriage that God intends. You are separating the unitive nature of sexual intercourse, and doing it in an unnatural way.

So how does this explain why the aforementioned procedures are not licit?

Because the sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. In vitro and artificial insemination remove procreation from the unitive context of the marriage act.

Taking out the unitive aspect is equally wrong as taking out the procreative aspect (artificial contraception).

In fact, one could argue the unitive aspect is more important, as the aged and the sterile are still allowed and meant to have marital relations (i.e. sex is not just for procreation, as some theologians have suggested). But, they are clearly both necessary.

God Bless

 

[Dredgemate]

My reason for posting this was for helping to explain why procedures like in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are not moral.

So the defense is that it is not the natural act of marriage that God intends. You are separating the unitive nature of sexual intercourse, and doing it in an unnatural way.

So how does this explain why the aforementioned procedures are not licit?

From the Catechism:

The gift of a child
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"1And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!”
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.“1"Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
2378 A child is not something *owed *to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.