Sex for the unitive purpose alone is moral within Catholicism

[bear06]

My position is that pregnant couples don’t have a procreative aspect to suppress, but you disagree.

I grasp what you are arguing butwe still have the pesky fact that you are using a faulty definition of what the Church means by procreative. Procreative doesn’t mean reproductive. If it did then the unitive and procreative couldn’t be interdependent and you could only have them when you were fertile which has never been a teaching of the Church.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

I grasp what you are arguing butwe still have the pesky fact that you are using a faulty definition of what the Church means by procreative. Procreative doesn’t mean reproductive. If it did then the unitive and procreative couldn’t be interdependent and you could only have them when you were fertile which has never been a teaching of the Church.

So then what is the point of making sex holy by saying that a new being, a new soul, a new life might result from the conjugal act? Maybe it is not the official position, but I often see Catholics say how contraceptive sex is dirty and selfish because it’s all about pleasure and closed to new life, whereas Catholic sex is beautiful and holy because a new life might be created by the encounter, because it’s not just about pleasure.

But the sex of a pregnant couple is not about creating new life anymore than the sex of a contraceptive couple. A contraceptive couple has a higher chance of doing this then a pregnant couple.

The sex of a pregnant couple is really just about pleasure whether it be emotional or physical.

And just as contraceptive sex can become lustful because it’s easy to have lots of it without consequences, so can a pregnant couple have sex for the sake of lust and not at all for the sake of life. And an NFP couple can also have sex for the sake of pleasure alone, having nothing to do with brining new life into the world (which is impossible anyway when the woman is infertile).

Why would contraception make sex anymore about pleasure than pregnancy, or menopause, or infertile periods of NFP?

Maybe it does go against nature to deliberately suppress fertility, but I don’t see how it would create lust.

In either case the couples are having sex for enjoyment, not creation of new life. And NFP couples deliberately isolate times when they can have sex purely for enjoyment, without risk of pregnancy.

 

[shannyk]

Catholic teaching does NOT affirm that the conjugal act ever has a unative purpose alone. We don’t get to decide the natural purpose of our conjugal acts by our “wants.” God decided the natural purpose by His design. Whether something is moral or immoral depends upon whether we willfully frustrate God’s purpose for the conjugal act.

I stole that from Dave’s post. It sums it all up in one fell swoop.

In your scenario of the pregnant couple, there is no willful frustration of God’s intended purpose of sex. Yes, there is no possibility of the couples act resulting in a pregnancy, but they did not intentionally alter the natural function of their bodies in order to have sex with each other without the possibility of pregnancy. Not every sexual act within marriage has to result in a pregnancy, and simply because a couple has sex durring the woman’s fertile time doesn’t guarantee by any means it will result in a pregnancy. (Just ask women who struggle with fertility and have ‘normal’ cycles but can’t get pregnant.) It’s all about cooperating with God’s plan for us, and his plan for human sexuality isn’t seperate from his plan for our emotional, physical, and most importantly spiritual well being.

GBY

 

[bear06]

So then what is the point of making sex holy by saying that a new being, a new soul, a new life might result from the conjugal act? Maybe it is not the official position, but I often see Catholics say how contraceptive sex is dirty and selfish because it’s all about pleasure and closed to new life, whereas Catholic sex is beautiful and holy because a new life might be created by the encounter, because it’s not just about pleasure.

Contraceptive sex is a deformed act because it goes against God’s design not because it doesn’t result in reproduction. Sex according to the Church’s teachings, which are God’s teachings, is beautiful and holy because it works with God’s design. It is pro God’s creation. This has been said far more than a few times in the multitude of threads.

 

[svoboda]

shannyk:

I stole that from Dave’s post. It sums it all up in one fell swoop.

In your scenario of the pregnant couple, there is no willful frustration of God’s intended purpose of sex. Yes, there is no possibility of the couples act resulting in a pregnancy, but they did not intentionally alter the natural function of their bodies in order to have sex with each other without the possibility of pregnancy. Not every sexual act within marriage has to result in a pregnancy, and simply because a couple has sex durring the woman’s fertile time doesn’t guarantee by any means it will result in a pregnancy. (Just ask women who struggle with fertility and have ‘normal’ cycles but can’t get pregnant.) It’s all about cooperating with God’s plan for us, and his plan for human sexuality isn’t seperate from his plan for our emotional, physical, and most importantly spiritual well being.

GBY

I get this “harmony with nature” idea of conforming to the cycles to have sex for the unitive purpose alone (even if there is an indirect procreative purpose by virtue of not actively altering nature).

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

Contraceptive sex is a deformed act because it goes against God’s design not because it doesn’t result in reproduction. Sex according to the Church’s teachings, which are God’s teachings, is beautiful and holy because it works with God’s design. It is pro God’s creation. This has been said far more than a few times in the multitude of threads.

But my question to you is WHY is it evil to artificially create infertile periods instead of measuring when they naturally occur, why is it wrong to go against nature in this situation, we go against nature in other situations and it’s not a problem?

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

I get this “harmony with nature” idea of conforming to the cycles to have sex for the unitive purpose alone (even if there is an indirect procreative purpose by virtue of not actively altering nature).

You can’t have the unitive aspect alone. No unitive, no procreative - no procreative, no unitive. Alas, now you’ll probably going to say that NFP is not procreative because you are using your definition, not the Church’s and thus the argument becomes circular - AGAIN! If you are following God’s deesign, you are unitive and procreative whether or not you are fertile or infertile. For the hundreth time, procreative doesn’t mean reproductive. Can we stop now?! :banghead:

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

bear06:

But my question to you is WHY is it evil to artificially create infertile periods instead of measuring when they naturally occur, why is it wrong to go against nature in this situation, we go against nature in other situations and it’s not a problem?

Because God didn’t design us to have artificially created infertile periods. God created us to have naturally occuring fertile and infertile periods. Let’s look at fertility drugs because I’m guessing you’ll suggest something along this par. They don’t cause us to become pregnant. They simply enhance God’s natural design. They don’t go against nature. If you’ve got no eggs, it can’t simply make them appear and it doesn’t suddenly make you fertile all of the time. It allows ovulation to occur. Taking the pill, for example, deforms God’s natural design by trying to render the body infertile (when it isn’t) all of the time whether or not it works.

 

[Katie1723]

Sounds like a good cat fight brewing. I may just have to hang around and watch for a bit. Some one bring the popcorn…I’ve got my coffee
Kathy

 

[bear06]

Katie1723:

Sounds like a good cat fight brewing. I may just have to hang around and watch for a bit. Some one bring the popcorn…I’ve got my coffee

               Kathy

Brewing?! This one has been sitting in the carafe far too long! Time to dump it in my opinion.

 

[LeahInancsi]

svoboda:

It is moral for Catholics to have sex for the unitive purpose alone even when there is no infertility or menopause.

Here is why: NFP is moral.

Using NFP means taking very careful measurements of the woman’s fertility, and most of the time throughout the marriage having sex only during the infertile times.

Physically sex during the infertile times is not open to life. Without the release of an egg conception is physically impossible. That NFP has a 2% chance of failure is not what makes it moral, and better methods could very well be 100% successful and still be moral.

The means of NFP is not open to conception.

The intent of NFP is not open to conception either. For whatever reason (which could be very serious) NFP couples go through the effort of finding out when the woman is fertile and abstaining during that time. They do it to have sex without becoming pregnant.

Sex for the unitive purpose alone among fertile couples is perfectly moral.

You’re splitting hairs. I hope no one disagrees with your statement that sex for the unitive purpose alone among fertile couples is perfectly moral. It must be open to the conception of a child when conception is possible.

Deep thought is good, but sometimes a waste of time.

 

[svoboda]

LeahInancsi:

You’re splitting hairs. **I hope no one disagrees with your statement that sex for the unitive purpose alone among fertile couples is perfectly moral. ** It must be open to the conception of a child when conception is possible.

Deep thought is good, but sometimes a waste of time.

I think pretty much everyone disagrees, but they use a different definition of procreative (it means not actively opposing fertility), so all non-contraceptive sex is automatically procreative

 

[itsjustdave1988]

svoboda:

But my question to you is WHY is it evil to artificially create infertile periods instead of measuring when they naturally occur, why is it wrong to go against nature in this situation, we go against nature in other situations and it’s not a problem?

It is only intrinsically evil if what you intend (will) contrary to conception by your conjugal act.

If you take hormones for a medical purpose, for example, and by taking these hormones they have an unintended consequence of affecting change with one’s fertility, and you do not deliberately will contraception, then it is not immoral given the conditions of the principles of double-effect are met.

As for the reason willful acts of contraception is immoral…It is contrary to God’s will–according to natural law & according to Catholic Doctrine. God wills that humans never act so as to frustrate the primary purpose of conjugal acts, which is procreation.

 

[bear06]

Yes, willfully is important. It can also be found in the quote I posted before.

The practice of contraception, however, is different. On his own initiative, outside of and in opposition to the rhythmic cycle of fertility, man dissociates the two meanings, and willfully eliminates the procreative meaning. By thus eliminating the procreative meaning through a positive intervention, man also impairs the totality of the mutual self-giving, and offends against the unitotality of the persons who supposedly give themselves to each other in an act of intercourse. Intercourse is not a true and effective conjugal union in such a case, despite the psychological impression of the two, despite sincere subjective intentions. By interfering with the procreative meaning of the act, the couple also compromise the unitive meaning by unavoidable necessity. The two meanings are interdependent; one cannot exist essentially when the other is suppressed.

 

[Alterum]

To be fully unitive the conjugal act must itself be God-centered. One can never unite himself with another apart from God, save through sin.

You must define what you mean by “unitive,” because in my vocabulary this involves following all Magisterial teachings regarding proper, God-centered conduct in marriage.

 

[svoboda]

Alterum:

To be fully unitive the conjugal act must itself be God-centered. One can never unite himself with another apart from God, save through sin.

You must define what you mean by “unitive,” because in my vocabulary this involves following all Magisterial teachings regarding proper, God-centered conduct in marriage.

Instead of defining it, how about I just use the Church’s definition:

The Catechism doesn’t define “unitive”, but it has the following things to say which I think are as good a definition as any:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; **the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: **

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should **experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. ** They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 **The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves ** and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

So let’s see what “unitive” is: physical intimacy is a pledge of spiritual communion, it is the way a man and a woman commit themselves to one another, enriches spouses joy and gratitude, is a source of joy and pleasure, the good of the spouses themselves.

If you can give a better definition, I welcome it, because the Catechism is rather vague. But since it’s the Church’s understanding of unitive that counts in this debate, it’s important that it not be your personal definition but rather the official one.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

svoboda:

… since it’s the Church’s understanding of unitive that counts in this debate, it’s important that it not be your personal definition but rather the official one.

Interesting suggestion.

Can’t we apply it to your thesis? When has the Church ever taught that sex can morally have a unitive purpose alone? Instead, doesn’t the Church teach that there are two inseparable and essential aspects of the conjugal act? If both are essential, then how can your contrary thesis be true according to the Church? Remember, it is important that “it not be your personal definition but rather the official one.” :ehh:

The Church teaches in Humanae Vitae 12:

Union and Procreation

       12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the ***inseparable connection***, established by God, which*** man on his own initiative may not break***, ***between the unitive significance and the procreative significance ****inherent to the marriage act* which are both .

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And*** if*** each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

Instead of defining it, how about I just use the Church’s definition:

The Catechism doesn’t define “unitive”, but it has the following things to say which I think are as good a definition as any:

So let’s see what “unitive” is: physical intimacy is a pledge of spiritual communion, it is the way a man and a woman commit themselves to one another, enriches spouses joy and gratitude, is a source of joy and pleasure, the good of the spouses themselves.

If you can give a better definition, I welcome it, because the Catechism is rather vague. But since it’s the Church’s understanding of unitive that counts in this debate, it’s important that it not be your personal definition but rather the official one.

Better definition:The unitive is aspect is the mutual and total self-giving of spouses to each other’s salvation.

 

[PureGrace]

svoboda:

Okay, obviously every single Catholic person here wants to say that post menopausal couples who know that they will never have another child, pregnant couples who know that their sex acts will never lead to conception, and NFP couples who (if their methods were perfect) deliberately isolate their sex acts to times when they knew for sure they will not conceive are somehow open to life, are somehow having sex for its two purposes (begetting of children/procreative and unitive) AT THE SAME TIME.

I don’t think there is a point in discussing it further.

Sex that does not use contraception is NEVER completely closed to life. The couple leaves all in God’s hands. The couple who has sex after reaching menopause is obvisouly not choosing to have sex to acheive pregnancy, but they are not having sex while simultaneously deliberately avoiding pregnancy. They know that God can create life, even when it would be considered biologically impossible. Remeber Sarah, Abraham’s wife? When God told her that she was to conceive a son, she laughed at God because she thought that it would be impossible for the marital act between she and her husband to be fertile due to her old age…and we all know the rest of the story.

When a fertile couple uses artifical contraception, they are saying to God, “We want sex, but not kids.” That is a complete rejection of the procreative and unitative purpose of sex. When a couple uses NFP to plan their family, they say, “We want to have sex, and although we do not feel that we could have a child at this time, we trust in your will. If you want this union to be fertile, then let it be.” NFP shows the couple’s intent to cooperate with God’s will (Cooperation involves communication and consideration of both sides), whereas ABC shows the couple’s intent to frustrate and ignore God’s will. Couple’s who practice ABC are trying to take the creation of life into their own hands. Couples wo use NFP do not. Now, one may argue, “Well wait, if a couple who is using NFP is doing so to avoid pregnancy for legitimate reasons, and another couple is using ABC to avoid prganancy for legitimate reasons (That is worded funny, I do not mean the use of contraception is legit, I mean the couple has serious reasons for avoiding a pregnancy), aren’t they just doing the same thing? They are both avoiding pregnancy?” Nope. They are not doing the same thing. The couple using NFP trusts God’s will for their fertility, but the contracepting couple, by using contraception, are really saying that they do not trust God with their fertility.

When an infertile couple has sex, they are saying, “We want to have sex, and although we know that this act is likely not going to be fertile because we have passed our fertile years, we are open to life.” If a couple is non fertile, they are not having sex while biologically inhibiting the possibility of life. They are not actively closing themselves to life…biologically, there is no life to be closed to…but they also have sex with the knowledge that God can do the impossible. If you are not closed to life, how can you be anything but procreative?

**Bottom line is, we can never definitively tell whether or not a sexual act will bring forth life. So, any sexual act between a man and a women that does not use contraception is procreative because the couple says, “We understand and accept that this union will beget a child if that is what God wills.” This statement applies whether or not the couple is infertile or fertile. **

And if you want a modern day example of the impossible…
My mom’s best friend’s husband was told by his doctors many years ago that due to a disease of his reproductive organs (some sort of cancer, I think) he would never ever be able to have children. Today, he and his wife have five beautiful, healthy kids, the youngest being 2 and the oldest being 12. So much for “nonprocreative” bit of infertile sex.