A couple can only actually conceive a few days each month. The Church does not dictate that you have to target those times to have sex. You can knowingly have sex when you are not fertile. You simply cannot change the sex act (or actors) in order to prevent conception.I have read Humanae Vitae 3 times in the last couple months. I agree that marriage must not be separated from procreation, but I still do not see why individual sex acts cannot be only unitive especially after a couple has had and is raising children. Humanae Vitae does not address a transition in the role of the married couple from being creators of life to being nurturers of the life they create. Procreating as much as possible doesn’t sound like it is necessarily in the best interests of the welfare of the children a couple conceives. Children need attention and care from their parents, something they get less of as the number of children increases.
Sirach 16:1-4
To reiterate my questions:
By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.
- Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?
In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul speaks explicitly of the purpose of sex for married couples. He does not say its purpose is procreation. He recommends that couples have sex for purposes of controlling sexual temptation, and warns against extended periods of abstinence. He also says that it is better to have sex within a marriage than to “burn with passion.” This sounds contrary to church teaching, which promotes extended periods of abstinence, and says that “burning with passion” as St. Paul calls it, is better than relieving sexual tension in a way that precludes pregnancy.
- What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 8-9
As Abu notes, yes, it is addressed.I have read Humanae Vitae 3 times in the last couple months. I agree that marriage must not be separated from procreation, but I still do not see why individual sex acts cannot be only unitive especially after a couple has had and is raising children. Humanae Vitae does not address a transition in the role of the married couple from being creators of life to being nurturers of the life they create. Procreating as much as possible doesn’t sound like it is necessarily in the best interests of the welfare of the children a couple conceives. Children need attention and care from their parents, something they get less of as the number of children increases.
They can have sex for bonding, and/or pleasure, and/or quieting of concupiscence. They just can’t use contraception to do so.By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.
- Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?
Catholics are not sola scriptura. Are you trying to mount some sort of protestant criticism of the Church? Do you think you are better at interpreting scripture than the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit?
- What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?
Why must a couple always be procreative when having sex? I reread most of Humanae Vitae again earlier today. I am not convinced of its arguments.Humanae Vitae does just that – how strange to continue to ignore reality. It is time to start absorbing truth.
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 16:
“The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
“But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”
But this is not new.
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a *dubium *(a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html
Again, this question is explicitly addressed in HV:Why must a couple always be procreative when having sex? I reread most of Humanae Vitae again earlier today. I am not convinced of its arguments.
…
There is much more to life than just creating it. I argue that for as long as parents are raising the children they created, they are open to life.
Your other questions are answered too…Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
HV discusses this. It is because contraception is considered intrinsically evil, and thus always to be avoided.Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?
They can. They just can’t use contraception to do so. They can have sex for fun, for bonding, for pleasure, for quiting concusicence, etc, but they must do so with respect to the natural law, which the Church has clearly defined for us.By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.
But why is it intrinsically evil? Barriers do not harm anyone. While a couple is raising their children they are always open to life because they are continuously saying yes to the life they created at every moment.HV discusses this. It is because contraception is considered intrinsically evil, and thus always to be avoided.
What is required is actually morally just, procreative, and unitive. Unitive has to do with becoming one flesh. The act through which a couple becomes one flesh is the conjugal act, done in a human way that is not forced and is morally just. A couple does not consummate their union when a condom is used for this is unnatural and is withholding the gift, therefore it is not unitive. Procreative means that any child that results will be an accepted fruit of the act. God alone is the creator of that fruit and the couple are participants in His plan. It is acceptable, when there is good moral reason, to restrict the conjugal act to the naturally infertile times (NFP) yet that is still procreative and unitive. This agreed upon abstinence does not conflict with scripture, but is even mentioned by St. Paul Paul 1st Cor. 7:[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.…
By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.
- Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?
…
- What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?
Paul says not to abstain except for limited periods of time for prayer, and then come together again to reduce temptation.What is required is actually morally just, procreative, and unitive. Unitive has to do with becoming one flesh. The act through which a couple becomes one flesh is the conjugal act, done in a human way that is not forced and is morally just. A couple does not consummate their union when a condom is used for this is unnatural and is withholding the gift, therefore it is not unitive. Procreative means that any child that results will be an accepted fruit of the act. God alone is the creator of that fruit and the couple are participants in His plan. It is acceptable, when there is good moral reason, to restrict the conjugal act to the naturally infertile times (NFP) yet that is still procreative and unitive. This agreed upon abstinence does not conflict with scripture, but is even mentioned by St. Paul Paul 1st Cor. 7:[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
The logical result is that, on average, those that cannot contain themselves will through their passion produce many children.** 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. **
Children aren’t even mentioned in that chapter of Corinthians.The logical result is that, on average, those that cannot contain themselves will through their passion produce many children.
That’s precisely what thinking, realistic, faithful couples do.Thinking10 #22
Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?
By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.
Again, HV discusses this very question. Just keep reading it until you understand better:But why is it intrinsically evil? Barriers do not harm anyone. While a couple is raising their children they are always open to life because they are continuously saying yes to the life they created at every moment.
May I ask, because it does make a big difference, are you Catholic?If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.
Yes, I am Catholic.Again, HV discusses this very question. Just keep reading it until you understand better:
May I ask, because it does make a big difference, are you Catholic?
If you are Catholic, I would say to you that this is a clear and authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, and thus you can have full confidence in it, even thought you don’t agree or understand as yet.
If you are not, then it is a more perplexing matter. Keep in mind that many faithful Catholics struggle with this teaching, so we understand that non-Catholics may find it difficult and not easy to accept or believe to be true.
How is sex being misused if sex has already resulted in the creation of as many children as the couple can take care of? At some point in the marriage, isn’t a healthy relationship between the parents more beneficial to their children than giving them more siblings? If sex without procreation is helpful to maintaining a healthy relationship between the husband and wife, why should they abstain? A good relationship between spouses is greatly beneficial to their children.That’s precisely what thinking, realistic, faithful couples do.
What is immoral is to misuse sex by deliberately putting a barrier such as condoms, spermicides or withdrawal which actions pervert the act.
What is difficult to understand when all that is required is to use the act naturally and merely avoid the fertile periods for grave and just reasons which have been clearly identified?
Quoting St Paul and failing to understand that he is part of the Church established to teach without error through Her Magisterium cannot solve anything. St Paul is teaching in conformity with Catholic doctrine. Self-control can be learned and developed – that is then the warp and woof of life. St Paul does not each anything contrary to the faith; he is part of the Church.
Actions that are sinful are not healthy and do not result in a maintaining a healthy relationship between spouses.How is sex being misused if sex has already resulted in the creation of as many children as the couple can take care of? At some point in the marriage, isn’t a healthy relationship between the parents more beneficial to their children than giving them more siblings? If sex without procreation is helpful to maintaining a healthy relationship between the husband and wife, why should they abstain? A good relationship between spouses is greatly beneficial to their children.
Who is harmed by permitting spouses to cease procreation at a certain point, and focus on their relationships with each other and their children?
Good, then you have the luxury of accepting the teaching even though you don’t understand it. This is agreat blessing to know that the Holy Spirit protects our Church fromt teaching error.Yes, I am Catholic.
I am talking about a married couple postponing or ceasing procreation after having as many children as they can care for. I am not talking about use of contraception outside of marriage.many many more children are now born out of wedlock
I think viewing sex only as a tool for making babies can also be harmful. Sex is also an important part of bonding between a husband and wife. When they don’t have the ability to care for more children, why should they suspend physical intimacy? To some degree, this seems like objectification of the married couple, reducing their sex life only to its usefulness for procreation, and ignoring their need for intimacy with each other.The Catholic Church views sex as something very special. The secular world views it as merely recreation/fun.
You are talking about attempting to separate procreation from sex. It is all part of the same puzzle.I am talking about a married couple ceasing procreation after having as many children as they can care for. I am not talking about use of contraception outside of marriage.
Well, actually they are, but no matter.Children aren’t even mentioned in that chapter of Corinthians.
"2 But** since sexual immorality is occurring**, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.