Procreation, not recreation

[texaspanda]

I am married to a catholic man and we have five children. Recently upon beginning RCIA classes our celebrant continually hammers this fact that sex between husband and wife is for procreation not recreation. I understand the point looking at it from the view that this is what these organs function for, however the procreation stage of our lives is over.
Is this really the absolute rule?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… our celebrant continually hammers this fact that sex between husband and wife is for procreation not recreation…

Am I allowed to disagree with the celebrant? Because I think sex is neither just for procreation or recreation.

Sex is a way of giving our life giving bodies completely to our spouses, in the same way the Groom Jesus gave His lifegiving body for His Bride, The Church.

And the Church actively teaches NFP - and it boasts that it is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy, even better than artificial contraception. So the idea that sex is just for procreation is nonsense.

 

[LuxDei]

First of all, GOD BLESS YOU for participating in RCIA! I myself am a recent convert and can assure you that it has been the most amazing experience of my life. I’m excited for you!

I think what the priest was trying to get at was probably the idea that sex isn’t something we’re all “entitled” to just because we’ve reached puberty, and even within marriage, we need to leave the act open to life (in that we don’t CLOSE it to life by artificial means), and it should occur with respect for its true meaning (not taking place out of pure selfish lust).

Speaking as a college student, so many people really do think of sex as just a recreational activity. And many couples, after marrying, shout the mantra “We’re married! What goes on in our bedroom is our business!” But the previous poster has got it…it’s a complete and total giving of self, which, I would add, takes place as part of your Sacramental vows before God. So of course God and morality has a place even there…ESPECIALLY there, since it’s twofold unitive and procreative purposes are supposed to be a reflection of Christ’s Love for the Church.

So, bottom line, I’d be willing to bet that that’s what the priest meant. There are many threads on this forum (some just general threads, others answered by the resident apologists) that affirm that a married couple who is past their childbearing years (or infertile for any other natural and uncontrollable reason) may certainly still engage in the marital embrace. The moral issues come in when someone is purposely frustrating the very nature of spousal sexuality by bringing artificial contraception into the picture (or when lust becomes an issue because one spouse is viewing the other as nothing but a means to satisfy their urges and is losing focus of the true meaning and beauty of the act).

God bless, and stay strong on your journey

 

[fellowChristian]

V. The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love

1643
“Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only **purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”**152

THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.htm#v

1 Corinthians 7

2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[Newbie2]

Am I allowed to disagree with the celebrant? Because I think sex is neither just for procreation or recreation.

Sex is a way of giving our life giving bodies completely to our spouses, in the same way the Groom Jesus gave His lifegiving body for His Bride, The Church.

And the Church actively teaches NFP - and it boasts that it is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy, even better than artificial contraception. So the idea that sex is just for procreation is nonsense.

Well put.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please ask the celebret to explain the Church reference to sex being unitive and ask about

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love. Humanae Vitae –PPIV 1968

By the way Humanae Vitae is the primary teaching on the subject and easily available on line