Sex - Theology!

[Zahmir]

At what point is the sexual union realized?

Is it when the couple initially engages in sexual intercourse? Is it at orgasm? What if a couple, for some reason, does not have an orgasm, can they have said to have “union”?

Is there just an understanding that… “at some point during intercourse, though we dont’ know when, man and woman have full sexual union”?

Am I even on the right track with my question or do I have some broader misunderstanding?

 

[Fergal]

Full sexual union, from a theological point of view is a profound act. It is the act of uniting two bodies, husband and wife, conjugally. It is the joining of two souls through pure love and the openess of both husband and wife to new life.

Physical union does not constitute full sexual union if it occurs without love. This act is simple copulation.

It is still realised even if the act cannot be physically completed i.e. orgasm, due to a physical incapability of either spouse and it is not realised at all if it is deliberately stopped.

 

[ltbpoe43]

I think the term “unitive” in the case of marital relations implies that both man and woman give of themselves freely, lovingly, and without reservation. That is, both agree it is a moment to share and express physical love for each other. It’s in the heart - not on the clock.

 

[Zahmir]

THANK YOU!

I knew I wasn’t understanding something…

THANK YOU THANK YOU!

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

As I understand it, all of the sacrament of the Eucharist is called the Mass; the readings the Gospel the prayers etc. But the cilmax is receiving the Eucharist. If for some reason the conditions were not present during the Mass (ie. no priest present, no bread or wine) then there is no Mass. period.

Sex on the other hand if the fullfilment of the wedding vows, to give yourself completely to the other person, in love; and to accept them completely in love. The climax is… well, the climax. If the proper conditions are not present (ie persons involved not married) then there is no marriage. This is why we Catholic call sex the Marriage act, it is the fullfilment of our marital role, just like receiving the Eucharist is the fullness of our participation in the Eucharist.

Pope John Paul II in “Love and Responsibility” wrote that when a husband and wife engage in the marital act, they should strive to attain the climax simultaneously, thus they stirve for each other and not for themselves. It perfects the gift of self-giving.
I may not have got that completely right, that is why i’ve not put it in quotation marks, but it was words to that effect.

If you are really interested in the theology of sex, I would recommend
“Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West.

Or if you want the real deal then I would reccomend Pope John Paul II’s
“Theology of the Body” or “Love and Responsibility”.

Love and Responsibility Webpage

 

[Zahmir]

Yeah,

I’m already very familiar with all those works. Love and Responsibility was the book that changed my outlook on a lot of things.

But, contrary to the other posters in this thread, you suggest that climax is the “climax” of the whole event.

I definitely understand that love is the essential factor in acheiving full union. I also know, however, that sex is an objectively unifying act that one can not “undo” with intention. Is the Eucharist any less Jesus if we don’t think it is?

I know that all of married life, out of selfless love, is unifying, and that sex both summarizes and punctuates that “oneness” that makes marriage, marriage.

How essential is climax to sexual union, however? Many times, from what I hear, a woman won’t have an orgasm, though this doesn’t make the act anything less. Then again, isn’t the male orgasm essential to procreation, which is intrinsically caught up in a unity of love?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Moved to Moral Theology.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

I hope that my limited understanding (and vocabulary) has not caused any confusion, or worse any doctrinal error. I am merely trying to explain this sacred act, as I understand it, in light of the writings of the late John-Paul II. So I will try to take it one point at a time, and summerise at the conclusion.

I’m already very familiar with all those works. Love and Responsibility was the book that changed my outlook on a lot of things.

Great! Re-read it! It is so full of wisdom that we could read it 100 times or more and still get new insights!

But, contrary to the other posters in this thread, you suggest that climax is the “climax” of the whole event.

The climax of the sexual union is the climax!? otherwise why would it be so-called? The climax should be brought forth from the source of the spouses love, in a complete act of self-giving. It should never be attained as a selfish fullfilment of Lust.

I definitely understand that love is the essential factor in acheiving full union. I also know, however, that sex is an objectively unifying act that one can not “undo” with intention. Is the Eucharist any less Jesus if we don’t think it is?

Just to clarify, I do believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist no matter what someone think or feels. I do believe however that the graces you recieve from that communion depend greatly on your faith. It won’t change you if you will not be changed. It cannot be a communion of love if you refuse to love Him! Just as the Marriage act can be performed without spousal love.

I know that all of married life, out of selfless love, is unifying, and that sex both summarizes and punctuates that “oneness” that makes marriage, marriage.

Yes, but as far as I know the Church teaches that there is no marriage unless it is validly consummated!

How essential is climax to sexual union, however? Many times, from what I hear, a woman won’t have an orgasm, though this doesn’t make the act anything less. Then again, isn’t the male orgasm essential to procreation, which is intrinsically caught up in a unity of love?

I am in no way comparing Marriage to the Eucharist, merely using the sacramental sign as an analogy (even if I’m doing so badly).
So here we go:-

As we know it is possible to go to Mass and participate without receiving communion (for whatever reason). That dosen’t make Communion any less the “Climax” of the Sacrament. It doesn’t make the Eucharist any less Jesus. There are still graces flowing for all!
I believe we should always try to receive communion at Mass when we can, although it might not always be possible!

This is where I draw the analogy, a married couple can engage in the marital act and not have a simultaneous climax, it is still edifying to both. Their love is in no way any less than if they had.
But I believe they should still aim to have a simultaneous climax when they can, although it’s not always possible!

As you have rightly pointed out above, Male climax is essential for the union to be complete - Without it there would be no openness to life- so in some sense this is the climax, the high point the for Him. Why should it not then be a fuller expression of their union by making this the climax for both spouses?

Simultaneous climax is not essential, but it is a safeguard that stops this self-giving act from turning into a self-gratifying act. It is also a more complete expression of the togetherness, the communion of the spouses.

 

[Zahmir]

That helps a lot, thank you.

As we speak, a lot of things are being assembled in my head.

In short, male climax is the essential part of the union. One could say that sex happens on the man’s terms.

Of course, the woman should also reach her own climax and all attempts should be made to make that simultaneous, because that’s when the union is “most realized,” and because pleasure is a sacrament of the joy of union.

Does this sound correct?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

That helps a lot, thank you.

As we speak, a lot of things are being assembled in my head.

Great, but i’m sure there is still much more we can ALL learn.

In short, male climax is the essential part of the union.

I wouldn’t say THE essential part, only AN essential part. Just as essential are the elements of love, union, open-ness to life, intention (self-giving not self-gratfication) etc.

One could say that sex happens on the man’s terms.

It should happen on mutual terms! Each of the spouses giving themselves fully to each other. Whoever is most likely to reach the climax first (usually the man, but not always), should learn how to control it, that they might wait for their spouse. This is an act of self sacrifice, and demands self-control. If we are not fully in control of ourselves then we can’t really make a complete self donation. The gift of self is dictated by how much we can master ourselves, our desires, our mind and our Flesh. We can only give what we have. Self-mastery is the key to self-donation. In this sacrament a man and woman love each other so much, their love is so real that it can become another human being with an immortal soul that will last for all eternity! This is one of the ways in which marriage is an image of the Blessed Trinity. The love that the Father and Son have for each other is so real, that it is another person, namely the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the woman should also reach her own climax and all attempts should be made to make that simultaneous, because that’s when the union is “most realized,” and because pleasure is a sacrament of the joy of union.

Does this sound correct?

Rather than thinking in terms of what he achieved and what she achieved, we should think more of what they achieved. It is not just two individuals engaging in this sacred act, it is a married couple, united in the bonds of love, and in the bonds of the Sacrament.

Don’t get me wrong, it can still be a full, valid and edifying act without the simultaneous climax. We can receive Jesus in the Eucharist under one species, or both. Both ways are fully Jesus; but receiving under both species is a fuller expression of communion. In the same way, if the marital act can be performed with this togetherness, it is a fuller expression of the couple’s unity, although no more valid.

I hope I’ve answered your questions! If not, or if you have any others, feel free to post them or to drop me a private message!

God bless you

 

[Zahmir]

The thing is, I keep getting two answers:

-This is how it happens

and

-It’s all about love, man

And while the second answer is perfectly fine, we should still be able to discuss the first within the context of the second.

For example, I said that sex happens on man’s terms. Of course it’s a mutual act, full of love and devotion, a mutual experience that one cannot separate into two separate experiences. In the same way, one cannot techincally separate God, but we speak of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, as they are in relation to one another. No one says that the Persons of God don’t love each other or don’t have “one experience,” and certainly I would not make that mistake in regards to the marital act. I am simply trying to understand the relation of man and woman, specifically pertains to sexual union. When I say that sex happens on man’s terms, I simply am rephrasing something that you said and I agreed with: “male climax is essential for the union to be complete.”

I don’t think my statement is detrimental or sexist, provided we both have an understanding of what sex truly is, and, as I have explained to you, I certainly understand the complete self-giving of husband and wife for each other.

Another important point, though, is that man and wife give themselves to each other in different ways. This cannot be disputed. While it is one, mutual experience, just as the Persons of the Trinity differ only in relation, but so too do husband and wife differ only in relation during the marital act. There is a profound difference between the two, and as I have said before, I am interested to know how that difference plays out in the sexual union itself.

Love unites. Of course it does, but one must not make the mistake that this erotic love that can result in truly “one flesh” can simply be this aura-like “love” – lest homosexuality be considered acceptable. On the contrary, our capacity for true erotic love – erotic love perfected by agape – is intriniscally caught up in our sexuality, male and female, which is brought to fulfillment in the sexual union.

I think in saying all this, I have answered my own question. But, please feel free to elaborate, on the basis of this post, on anything we have written previously.

 

[Jay2]

When everything is “clicking”, all the puzzle pieces are in order, and you and your wife achieve a mind-bending, near grey-out simultaneous orgasm… that’s when the sexual union is realized.

(We’ve had two in nearly 20 years together… and we both know that the conception of our kids was immanent at that moment )
Any other couples experience that? You just know that this time was extraordinary?

I’d say that it is about 60/40 (me) that initiates. Regardless of who starts it, it always turns to be a mutual expression of love.

I’ve made Love to my wife, I’ve had sex with my wife, but I’ve never ****** my wife… does that make any sense?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

When I say that sex happens on man’s terms, I simply am rephrasing something that you said and I agreed with: “male climax is essential for the union to be complete.”

Let me clarfiy what I meant when I made this statement.
The male “climax” is the process in which his seed is released, or at least the time his seed Sould be released (not everyone can). This release is what I claimed is an essential point (one of many) in the sexual union, because without it there is no openness to life. For example- if for some reason that the marriage act was interrupted, (ie crying baby, emergency etc. but not some sinful means) the act wouldn’t be valid. it would be a non-event. It might still have been wonderful, but sexual union would not have been obtained. At least that is how I understand it.

Another important point, though, is that man and wife give themselves to each other in different ways… There is a profound difference between the two, and as I have said before, I am interested to know how that difference plays out in the sexual union itself.

True! The union of the sexes (or sexual union) IS played out differently by Males and Females. We we’re made in God’s image and likeness, male and female he created us. That means that both Male and Female reflect an important, yet different aspect of God. Men were made to give and Women were made to recieve in the sexual union, as is dictated by our very bodies. But both of these aspects are equally important parts of God’s loving nature. Giving and receiving. It doesn’t mean that one is better than the other, it just means we compliment each other. In fact one sex, (male or female) by itself, doesn’t make any sense without the other. We were created that way.

But, I believe that we cannot fully understand sex, unless we understand Marriage. And to understand Marriage it helps to have a good understanding of the diffrent roles of the sexes i.e. what is Masculinity and Femininity.

I would highly reccomend listening to some of the CDs produced by Christopher West about Marriage. They have been so-o helpful and enlightening for me.

Me and some male friends meet once a month for “Guys night”, we order pizza have a beer and listen to one of Christopher West’s CDs. (We try to keep the group small, so we have six guys, half are married half are single). After listening to the CD we sit and chat about it, and the implications in our own lives. ALL of us have found our meetings very edifying. It has really helped us to find our role as men, and indeed find out what masculinity is really all about. Which in turn has helped us to appreciate the complimentarity of a woman’s role and to respect her femininity more.

:twocents: Some Thoughts on Sex and Marriage
God wants to continue creating new people. Marriage is the arena where God invites a couple to come join with Him in creating new people. This is one of the powerful gifts that we have as Man, the fruit of which will last for eternity. God also knows that the place where a child will best flourish and grow to fullfil his purpose, is in a stable, loving environment, where he has a father and a mother who love him. Marriage safeguards this, for both the spouses and for the children. Sex is the superglue that holds marriage together. It is the means by which we transcend into God’s creative arena, where we declare our love in His presence, and where He completes our offering. All this is dependent on the right conditions of course, and our openness to receive His grace. In short, Marriage is the Sacrament given to produce and protect Families.

Sorry for the long post, but there is just so much that one could say about this topic, and I believe that it is something people need to talk about more. If it’s not spoken about in the open, it is often repressed and this can cause undue frustration and un-necessary unhealthy curiosity! Good people need to share the good news. We are Married, this is part of our Sacrament. We should be able to discuss the spirituality of Marriage. This, as it stands, includes the physical elements.

Article on Sex, Love and Marriage

 

[Zahmir]

Despite your exceedingly long post :tiphat: I am very appreciative of what you have said. I hope I don’t leave the impression that I view sex as something beastly or commonplace, or that I seem to ignore the immediate context – love – and the greater context – marriage – in which sex, properly understood, must take place.

There has been one question roaming around in the back of my mind which is directly related to my original question and, indeed, prompted my OP in the first place.

If a man cannot ejaculate for whatever reason, or has no sperm, does full sexual union take place? Why or why not?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Ah ha! That ***is ***a question.

Hope this helps!

St. Thomas of Aquin: Summa Theologica- Is impotence is an impediment to marriage?

Although I feel I must point out that- in all the questions St Thomas Aquinas answers, he first states all the objections that others have to this or that certian doctrine. These objections are duly noted at the beginning of each text, but are not to be perceived as his answer. After his answer he refutes each of the objections in turn. This method that he uses is confusing for many, as it reads theat he is contradicting himself. Usually when we hear bad things about what he has written, it is because peole have quoted sections of his objections and used this as his answer! :doh2:

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

When everything is “clicking”, all the puzzle pieces are in order, and you and your wife achieve a mind-bending, near grey-out simultaneous orgasm… that’s when the sexual union is realized.

(We’ve had two in nearly 20 years together… and we both know that the conception of our kids was immanent at that moment )
Any other couples experience that? You just know that this time was extraordinary?

I’d say that it is about 60/40 (me) that initiates. Regardless of who starts it, it always turns to be a mutual expression of love.

I’ve made Love to my wife, I’ve had sex with my wife, but I’ve never ****** my wife… does that make any sense?

 

[Zahmir]

Although old people have not sufficient calidity to procreate, they have sufficient to copulate. Wherefore they are allowed to marry, in so far as marriage is intended as a remedy, although it does not befit them as fulfilling an office of nature.

-ST Supplement 58.1.ad 3

Unfortunately, Thomas Aquinas himself did not write on marriage in the ST… This was the best I could find in the link you gave me.

Still, you have to admit that as smart as these people were, they were just a tinsey bit behind the times in regards to sexuality. We understand things differently than they did, though in my mind, I am trying to reconcile this above statement with what we already know.

I think we also need to take a step back and acknowledge that “openess to life” and “possibility for procreation” are two separate things. As John Paul II wrote in Love and Responsibility, it is important for couples to have in mind “We may have a child.”

If a man is unable to ejaculate or has very low sperm count to make it practically nil, especially if he is still young, I think he would be morally obligated to get medical treatment as long as it is not “extraordinary.”

So, as regards the question, “does full sexual union take place?” Yes, I do believe it does. The man is able to have intercourse, and two have become one flesh. They are open to life and, if still young, are making attempts to raise sperm count, etc.

Male climax is normally an essential factor for sexual union, but I think in these situations, this “criterion” can be absorbed into the immediate context of intercourse and love.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

I think we also need to take a step back and acknowledge that “openess to life” and “possibility for procreation” are two separate things. As John Paul II wrote in Love and Responsibility, it is important for couples to have in mind “We may have a child.”

If a man or woman is infertile/sterile this is diffrent from being unable to perform the marital act!

A man who is unable to produce sperm, can still ejaculate semenal fluid. The fact that he cannot produce sperm is not a hinderence to the act. But if for some reson his impotance was of the sort where he was unable to enter his wife or he was unable to ejaculate at all, I think this would be a serious impediment to the validity of the act.

Will try and find some more resonable sources for you!

God bless!

 

[mrsarchieleach]

I think something about “often times women do not reach orgasm” was mentioned by someone somewhere in the thread - for all of you who may not be aware, roughly 3/4th of women do NOT reach orgasm via vaginal stimulation alone. Women need other forms of stimulation to achieve climax. Many think there is something wrong with them when they “can’t” achieve orgasm, when in reality it’s simply the way they have been designed physically to reach orgasm - it is not just about intercourse for women. There are very few nerve endings in the vagina - most are at the opening and very few actually inside, hence the need for clitoral stimulation where there are roughly 8,000 nerve endings - twice as many as the male penis! If you want to help your wife achieve orgasm if she’s having trouble, get to know the female body and how she responds sexually and simultaneous orgasms can become more frequent. Freud did women no service when he went on about how women who cannot achieve vaginal orgasms are somehow deficient and that the vaginal orgasm is the mature orgasm and a clitoral orgasm is immature - in fact the very opposite is true! Women are only very recently beginning to know their own bodies more fully and how they are made and respond sexually and how we differ from men in that regard. And by the way, the purpose of a woman’s orgasm DOES have an effect on the opennes to life - the female orgasm draws up the ejaculate towards the cervix and on into the uterus, so in order to be at “best” odds of being open to life, it is actually “best” that the woman orgasms right after the man, during her fertile time, that is. For too long, women where told to just 'lie back and think of England" and “it” will soon be over… now women have the opportunity to fully engage sexually in the sexual union - having the physical only enhances the spiritual aspect of this union - she can now feel FULLY participatory in it and that can only be to the bnefit of the marriage - she will no longer merely “feel used” or as some “means to an end” for her husband but can feel his equal in this blessed union of two souls.

I hope this helps and was useful info.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

And by the way, the purpose of a woman’s orgasm DOES have an effect on the opennes to life - the female orgasm draws up the ejaculate towards the cervix and on into the uterus, so in order to be at “best” odds of being open to life, it is actually “best” that the woman orgasms right after the man, during her fertile time, that is…

I hope this helps and was useful info.

This is new to me, but makes perfect sense. Simultaneous climax would optimize their changes of conception. As husband releases the wife would simultaneously facilitate his seed. Wow, God really knew what he was doing when he created sex didn’t He!
Thanks for sharing!

To answer my last post, on the question of impotance, here’s what I found: -

It is clear that an impotent person cannot validly contract marriage since he is physically incapable of realizing its object. For this particular impediment we must refer to the technical treatises on the subject and limit ourselves to some conclusions. The impotency which is a cause of nullity is the incapacity of having conjugal relations (impotentia coeundi), not incapacity of engendering (impotentia generandi), in other words, sterility. No one is presumed impotent once he has reached the legal or real age of puberty; consequently, no one, except eunuchs, can be prevented by authority from marrying (Sixtus V, 27 June, 1587). The different classifications of impotency, absolute or relative, antecedent or subsequent, perpetual or temporal, to be met with in various treatises, are of no practical importance now. Only perpetual antecedent impotency is a cause of nullity; nowadays it is seldom necessary to examine too closely into this matter, as all cases arising from it are treated as far as possible under the form of dispensations of non-consummated marriages.
From the Catholic Encyclodedia

God bless!