Procreative but not unitive

[CuriousInIL]

There have been many many threads on whether the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act can or can not be separated. And, it seems as if the majority (but perhaps not yet consensus) answer is that a properly ordered marital act is both procreative and unitive. Now the majority of those threads have focused on whether it is ever appropriate to have the act be unitive but not procreative. And, again, the majority answer is the act is not properly ordered if it is unitive only and not procreative.

Well, what do you all have to say on the reverse side of that. Often, when trying to get pregnant, one must engage in the marital act at a very specific time to maximize the chances of conception. If, in doing so, the act is procreative (and hopefully reproductive), but not unitive–for example one or the other is definitely not in the mood, etc.–does the lack of the unitive aspect mean that folks trying hard to have a baby in this way are not engaging in a properly order marital act? Why or why not?

 

[JimG]

The act is unitive and potentially procreative when it is engaged in as a part of normal marital relations.

A non-unitive act of procreation would be in vitro fertilization, for example, because it is accomplished outside the marital act. And that is why the Church forbids it.

Being in the mood has nothing to do with it.

 

[CuriousInIL]

IVF is not the marital act. So, do you mean to say that every procreative marital act is unitive? If not, what is an example of a procreative maritla act that is not unitive? If so, what does unitive mean/add?

 

[1ke]

CuriousInIL:

IVF is not the marital act. So, do you mean to say that every procreative marital act is unitive? If not, what is an example of a procreative maritla act that is not unitive? If so, what does unitive mean/add?

The church does teach IVF and related procedure break the unitive element of the marital act by substituting for the act.

But, as to your other question, marital rape is also a sin against unity.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

The unitative aspect of the martial act is not predicated on the intention or arousal of the parties (translated here as “mood”). The unitative aspect of the act is the physical and metaphysical one flesh union of the persons along with God in an act whose design is procreative.

The unitative and procreative aspects of the act can continue for decades should conception occur. If not, the act still has unitative results (the good of the spouses) for an indeterminate time.

The introduction of the intellect and human will into what is often a spontaneous act in my view increases the unity because of the clear procreative intention of the spouses over time. Using the intellect to assist nature in your example is a greater example of unity than a dozen roses and candle light. The unity here is enhanced while the sentimentality (the mood) may or may not be present in entirety.

 

[Ana]

I don’t know how on topic this is, but because St. Paul warns us in scripture that having relations with a prostitute, you are in fact “one flesh” … leads me to think that the unitive aspect of sex between a man and a woman is ALWAYS present.

Also, because as a one who engaged in premarital sex, I can speak firsthand of the spiritual bond that resulted from my partners. Years after the fact, I still feel like vomiting when I think of it. I have repented and am forgiven, but these consequenses persisted. There has been significant improvement since I went one by one and did a prayer asking God to break any bonds that had been formed with each partner.

On an aside, perhaps it is different for woman as we are the one being “entered.” Why rape victims shower compulsively and never feel clean.

I’m starting to think I am completely OT, feel free to ignore this.

 

[Celeste88]

By unitive do you mean that an emotional bond forms when the couple has sex? I’m sort of cynical in this respect, since my first marriage ended in divorce - and of course we did have relations. But I’ve seen it time and time again, married couples, obviously they have relations…screaming and belittling each other, my own parents fighting all the time, 50% of marriages ending in divorce…what happened to the unitive aspect of the marital act here?? Obviously it did not exist.

 

[JimG]

I agree with Ana. Physical marital relations is by its nature a unitive (and procreative) act. That is why it is proper only to the state of marriage; and why, when engaged in outside of marriage, it leads to a sense of betrayal or violation–it becomes a bodily lie.

But that does not change the nature of the act itself. The act is unitive by nature. If a man and a woman have exchanged a lifelong unbreakable loving commitment to each other, the marital act affirms, consummates, and tells the truth about that love and that commitment. (even when they’re not in the mood)

 

[Grandsmoor]

It does not seem to me that this discussion of unitve and procreative should in any way be effected by the mood of one person. If husband and wife have agreed to have a family, (regardless of the emotion at the time), acts done to bring about a family are demonstrative of spouses giving one to another the gift of self. This seems essentially to be a truly loving marital act between sacramentally covenanted spouses.

 

[Ana]

It seems to me, I could be wrong, that because Saint Paul warns that having sex with a prostitute, one has become “one flesh” with her, that the unitive aspect of sex is there, regardless of mood, intent, even consent (as in the case of rape.) For instance, in the case of rape, long after the act itself has passed … the victim often feels as if they have been permanantly “marked.” No amount of showers can remove the unitive aspect that was in this case FORCED upon them.

What the unitive act is proving/disproving on the other hand, may change from situation to situation, but it is always there? This is what I’m thinking. I need to ponder this a little more.

Now that I think about it, none of these conditions need to be met for the procreative aspect either. Procreation can happen, inside of marriage, outside of marriage, consensual sex, non-consensual sex, whether the couple wants a baby or doesn’t. Mood or intent doesn’t change the procreative aspect of sex either (assuming one has not “done something else to prevent it”).

 

[Ana]

Ana:

It seems to me, I could be wrong, that because Saint Paul warns that having sex with a prostitute, one has become “one flesh” with her, that the unitive aspect of sex is there, regardless of mood, intent, even consent (as in the case of rape.) For instance, in the case of rape, long after the act itself has passed … the victim often feels as if they have been permanantly “marked.” No amount of showers can remove the unitive aspect that was in this case FORCED upon them.

What the unitive act is proving/disproving on the other hand, may change from situation to situation, but it is always there? This is what I’m thinking. I need to ponder this a little more.

 

[Geremia]

It does not seem to me that this discussion of unitve and procreative should in any way be effected by the mood of one person. If husband and wife have agreed to have a family, (regardless of the emotion at the time), acts done to bring about a family are demonstrative of spouses giving one to another the gift of self.

So contraception destroys both the unitive and procreative ends of the marriage act? I thought it only destroyed the latter. As another poster here mentioned, St. Paul said one can become “one flesh” even with a prostitute.

 

[Rence]

IVF is not the marital act. So, do you mean to say that every procreative marital act is unitive? If not, what is an example of a procreative maritla act that is not unitive? If so, what does unitive mean/add?

No, not every procreative marital act is unitive. A procreative marital act that is not unitive is one that was not consensual. Consent is required, as explained by my priest. When a woman is raped, there is no unitive property involved in the act, even if her rapist is her husband, and even if a pregnancy resulted. He also pointed out that rape is not a marital act. Consent is always required by the Church and they’ve done a pretty good job making that clear as he explained it. Ask your own priest, he should be able to explain it to you…

From the CCC:

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147

 

[AngryAtheist8]

IVF is not the marital act. So, do you mean to say that every procreative marital act is unitive? If not, what is an example of a procreative maritla act that is not unitive? If so, what does unitive mean/add?

An example of a marital act that is procreative yet not unitive.
Unfortunately its easy to think of one:

A husband forcing himself on his wife when she did not want to have sex. Either through brute strength or subtler coercion.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t know how on topic this is, but because St. Paul warns us in scripture that having relations with a prostitute, you are in fact “one flesh” … leads me to think that the unitive aspect of sex between a man and a woman is ALWAYS present.

Even in cases of rape

If so, I have to say the ‘unitive aspect’ isn’t worth much.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t know how on topic this is, but because St. Paul warns us in scripture that having relations with a prostitute, you are in fact “one flesh” … leads me to think that the unitive aspect of sex between a man and a woman is ALWAYS present.

You make an excellent point, based on 1 Cor 6:16, that the unitive meaning may still be present, even if the marital or procreative meanings are absent, as in the case of a man who has relations with a prostitute using contraception.

This point implies that contraception outside of marriage is immoral. For just as the absence of the marital meaning does not destroy the unitive meaning (though it harms it), so also the absence of the marital meaning does not destroy the procreative meaning. Therefore, the choice to have sex outside of marriage, and the choice to use contraception in that extramarital sexual act, are both sins. The one sin deprives the sexual act of the marital meaning, and the other sin deprives the act of the procreative meaning.

 

[CuriousInIL]

No, not every procreative marital act is unitive. A procreative marital act that is not unitive is one that was not consensual. Consent is required, as explained by my priest. When a woman is raped, there is no unitive property involved in the act, even if her rapist is her husband, and even if a pregnancy resulted. He also pointed out that rape is not a marital act. Consent is always required by the Church and they’ve done a pretty good job making that clear as he explained it. Ask your own priest, he should be able to explain it to you…

From the CCC:

As you note, if it is rape it is not a marital act. So, then, rape is not an example of a procreative marital act that is not unitive. Still no example of that.

 

[CuriousInIL]

An example of a marital act that is procreative yet not unitive.
Unfortunately its easy to think of one:

A husband forcing himself on his wife when she did not want to have sex. Either through brute strength or subtler coercion.

As noted above, with lack of consent it does not appear to be a marital act.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, what do you all have to say on the reverse side of that. Often, when trying to get pregnant, one must engage in the marital act at a very specific time to maximize the chances of conception. If, in doing so, the act is procreative (and hopefully reproductive), but not unitive–for example one or the other is definitely not in the mood, etc.–does the lack of the unitive aspect mean that folks trying hard to have a baby in this way are not engaging in a properly order marital act? Why or why not?

The act you just quoted is indeed unitive. It has nothing to do with mood. It has everything to do with the fact that physiologically, the act requires a male and a female participant, in which both form one biological entity. Copulation is the only physiological activity that requires two people to accomplish. Whether one is in the mood or not, is a moot point. The couple cannot conceive (naturally) unless both are united in the same act.

As it happens, sometimes one wants to have sex but not babies, but babies result anyway, and other times one wants to have babies, but not necessarily sex, but having sex is a must. In both cases, if there are no artificial barriers to the natural aspects of the act, then it is both unitive and procreative.

That’s the natural law thing. Now for a couple trying to conceive, on an emotional level, that is a joint decision, a (one hopes) united decision, to start a family together. Let’s say that the husband comes home after a brutal day at work and is very tired, but his wife says that “tonight’s the night” as far as conception goes. Sure, maybe he’s not in the mood, but does his “duty” anyway like a good husband. I would definitely say that an act of self-sacrifice (i.e. he’d rather just sleep), contributes to the good of the marriage and is thus, on an emotional level, also “unitive” as it propels the couple towards a common and worthy goal of having a family together.

So you see, consensual, married, non-contracepted sex can not be anything other than both unitive and procreative. In a loving and self-giving relationship like a good marriage it isn’t always just “all about me”. Recognizing that fact and attending to your partner’s needs and not just demanding your own be fulfilled, is the secret to a happy, and united, marriage, and thus makes doing things that you don’t feel like doing, very unitive indeed.

 

[fbl9]

As noted above, with lack of consent it does not appear to be a marital act.

Why is having sexual relations outside of marriage sinful. Because those invovled are doing what is reserved for the marital bed. IOW the marital act refers to intercourse.So in the case of husband rape it is still the"marital" act.