Sexuality w/in Marriage

[vluvski]

What about during pregnancy? The act is inherently sterile once conception has already taken place. There’s no ‘chance of a miracle’ like there could be for old people or an infertile couple. There is no procreative potential there at all. The procreative purpose had already been fulfilled. How do Catholics reconcile this? Sex for unity alone sounds a lot like sex for intimacy/pleasure, which if I’m not mistaken, is not regarded very favourably (ie pleasure/initimacy can never be the goal, but it is the goal, since it’s all that left at that stage).

See, a perfect example of equating procreative with reproductive. Sex between a husband and his pregnant wife is in favor of creation. By creation, I mean God’s design for the world in which we live- ie the CREATED world. In order to not be procreative, the act must by deliberate means (birth control, condoms, withdrawal) or by its very nature (homosexual sex) be contradictory to God’s design for sex and marriage.

By your logic, any sex act that does not result in pregnancy is not procreative.

 

[contemplative]

vluvski:

This miss the mark a little as well, because it implies that a couple desiring marriage who has never been married or had children and who are past childbearing age are not entitled to a valid marriage. This is not the case.

A more appropriate argument is that their marriage can be life-giving without being reproductive. A marital vocation and call to holiness within this union is independent of a couple’s ability to reproduce.

The problem is that most people confuse “procreative” with “reproductive.”

In addition to existing families each might have produced at an earlier time, consider those who you say don’t have children or grandchildren. These elderly marrieds can adopt children or be foster parents or foster grandparents. Still… they fall into the life-giving form God intended.

 

[vluvski]

dulcissima:

When a husband and wife who are expecting a child engage in sexual relations, it is a celebration and reenactment of that life giving act. The same is true for couples who are past the child bearing years.

Beautiful and succint. Nice post!

 

[1ke]

GordonBOPS:

I’m needing some direction on this issue: The Church obviously doesn’t teach it is immoral for a post-monopause woman to have sex with her spouse - even though there is no possible procreative end. What is the rationale?

Each act of intercourse must be objectively unitive and procreative. The subjective result is not relevant, it is the objective nature of the act that must be unitive and procreative.

This means the act may not be altered in any way. The act is naturally infertile in a post-menopausal couple. But, the act itself still has an objective meaning and the integrity of the act must be maintained.

 

[GordonBOPS]

OK - But, there seems to be the distinction here between objective and subjective intent of the act. And maybe that’s where this all comes down. The objective and subjective intent of the act must be toward the procreative good. If the intent behind the act objectively is outside the purpose of leading to new life - then its immoral. HOwever, if the objective intent is OK, but subjective intent is one that is contraceptive or against procreation (without a serious justification) that is also immoral.

So, we could have a subjective intent on a homosexual act of wishing they could have a children but the objective view is that the act clearly could not acheive that end - then that is not proper. On the other hand, you could have an OK objective intent (meaning its clearly occuring in the way that it ought to) but the subjective intent is to avoid pregnancy - without a serious justification - that too is immoral.

Any takers? Both the objective view, and the subject intent must be in line to avoid sin. Thus, a homosexual act can never be moral because the objective view is that it never was and never ever could result in transmission of life in ANY circumstance known to man.

 

[GordonBOPS]

1ke:

Each act of intercourse must be objectively unitive and procreative. The subjective result is not relevant, it is the objective nature of the act that must be unitive and procreative.

This means the act may not be altered in any way. The act is naturally infertile in a post-menopausal couple. But, the act itself still has an objective meaning and the integrity of the act must be maintained.

OK - I agree but I think maybe you need to say that both the objective and subjective intent of the act must be toward the procreative good. If the intent behind the act objectively is outside the purpose of leading to new life - then its immoral. HOwever, if the objective intent is OK, but subjective intent is one that is contraceptive or against procreation (without a serious justification) that is also immoral.

So, we could have a subjective intent on a homosexual act of wishing they could have a children but the objective view is that the act clearly could not acheive that end - then that is not proper. On the other hand, you could have an OK objective intent (meaning its clearly occuring in the way that it ought to) but the subjective intent is to avoid pregnancy - without a serious justification - that too is immoral.

Any takers? Both the objective view, and the subject intent must be in line to avoid sin. Thus, a homosexual act can never be moral because the objective view is that it never was and never ever could result in transmission of life in ANY circumstance known to man.

 

[mercygate]

GordonBOPS:

OK - I agree but I think maybe you need to say that both the objective and subjective intent of the act must be toward the procreative good. If the intent behind the act objectively is outside the purpose of leading to new life - then its immoral. HOwever, if the objective intent is OK, but subjective intent is one that is contraceptive or against procreation (without a serious justification) that is also immoral.

So, we could have a subjective intent on a homosexual act of wishing they could have a children but the objective view is that the act clearly could not acheive that end - then that is not proper. On the other hand, you could have an OK objective intent (meaning its clearly occuring in the way that it ought to) but the subjective intent is to avoid pregnancy - without a serious justification - that too is immoral.

Any takers? Both the objective view, and the subject intent must be in line to avoid sin. Thus, a homosexual act can never be moral because the objective view is that it never was and never ever could result in transmission of life in ANY circumstance known to man.

You think “Catholic.”

 

[CuriousInIL]

Each act of intercourse must be objectively unitive and procreative. The subjective result is not relevant, it is the objective nature of the act that must be unitive and procreative.

This means the act may not be altered in any way. The act is naturally infertile in a post-menopausal couple. But, the act itself still has an objective meaning and the integrity of the act must be maintained.

I will ask again a question to which I have not yet received an satisfying answer. What does the bolded sentence mean–specifically when is an act of intercourse “objectively unitive”? When is it not? (Many posts have discussed the issue of objectively procreative.)

 

[mercygate]

CuriousInIL:

I will ask again a question to which I have not yet received an satisfying answer. What does the bolded sentence mean–specifically when is an act of intercourse “objectively unitive”? When is it not? (Many posts have discussed the issue of objectively procreative.)

Good question. Hm. The unitive aspect DOES seem to be subjective, but if you think about it, perhaps it is objectively unitive when no chemical or material barrier interferes with the procreative “objectivity.” Huh?

 

[CuriousInIL]

mercygate:

Good question. Hm. The unitive aspect DOES seem to be subjective, but if you think about it, perhaps it is objectively unitive when no chemical or material barrier interferes with the procreative “objectivity.” Huh?

Exactly!

 

[vluvski]

My understanding is that in order to be objectively unitive it must be within the confines of a valid marriage, that simple. Some people (based on my understanding, erroneously) argue that homosexual sex, fornication, and mutual masturbation are unitive. Perhaps the biological effects of intercourse lead these misguided individuals to feel a connection with the other person, but they are not truly unified in the same sense that husband and wife are unified each time they celebrate their vows through the marital embrace.

It’s like trying to mix oil and water. Men are one, women are the other, and until God bestows upon the couple the blessing of being married, they cannot mix and no amount of intermingling will unify them. Or trying to make a cake without an essential ingredient. You won’t come out with a cake, you’ll come out with a mess.

So I guess you could say God is like soap or baking soda or something.

 

[vluvski]

GordonBOPS:

So, we could have a subjective intent on a homosexual act of wishing they could have a children but the objective view is that the act clearly could not acheive that end - then that is not proper. On the other hand, you could have an OK objective intent (meaning its clearly occuring in the way that it ought to) but the subjective intent is to avoid pregnancy - without a serious justification - that too is immoral.

Any takers? Both the objective view, and the subject intent must be in line to avoid sin. Thus, a homosexual act can never be moral because the objective view is that it never was and never ever could result in transmission of life in ANY circumstance known to man.

The subjective intent seems irrelevant to me.
The sin of having a subjectively non-unitive or non-procreative intent is itself the sin, not the sex act accompanying that thought.

If a couple selfishly wants to avoid a pregnancy and is practicing NFP for the wrong reasons (which, by the way, only God can discern, I’m not judging anyone here, just making a point), their selfishness is the sin, not the act of sex during infertile times which is objectively unitive and procreative.

On the same token, if a couple discerns a serious reason to avoid, then decides to have sex anyway, hoping a pregnancy won’t occur, they are not sinning by hoping not to conceive while enjoying sex. The sex act is still objectively unitive and procreative. The sin would be lack of respect for a mutual and prayerful decision, the lust (within marriage, inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure according to my sexual ethics book) that led to ignoring that decision, or dishonoring their marriage vows by celebrating them while being emotionally unopen to life.

 

[cynic]

vluvski:

On the same token, if a couple discerns a serious reason to avoid, then decides to have sex anyway, hoping a pregnancy won’t occur, they are not sinning by hoping not to conceive while enjoying sex. The sex act is still objectively unitive and procreative. The sin would be lack of respect for a mutual and prayerful decision, the lust (within marriage, inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure according to my sexual ethics book) that led to ignoring that decision, or dishonoring their marriage vows by celebrating them while being emotionally unopen to life.

haha talk about a contradiction, the couple using nfp in the previouse paragraph are also celebrating their vows while being ''emotionally unopen to life".

As far as I can tell from posts here, sexual desires themselves must be ‘ordered’ towards procreation. Instead on wanting intimacy with your spouse - which is refered to as lust - the only desire in the act should be to “act as a co-creator with God” . ie it should not be a personal thing - it’s a invitation made directly to God to produce new life. That should be the reason for doing it. The pleasure is incidental, a means to the end. Considering this, then how is a couple using nfp - to deliberately reduce the chances of conceiving, or already pregnant- when there no chance at all , how are their desires not lustful? How are their desires any different form a couple using artificial contraception? The means may be different, but the desires are the same.

 

[batteddy]

As long as the couple leaves open the possibility of procreation and does nothing to deliberately frustrate conception, then they are acting in accord with God’s law. God, after all, sometimes chooses to make impossible things happen.

The first part is true, the second less so.

The “possible miracle” argument I find sophomoric. If sex with an infertile person is licit because “God could make it happen”…then sex with a condom would be licit also because God could, theoretically, make that happen too. So don’t use the miracle argument.

It more has to do with deliberateness. The infertile woman or old man is doing nothing to prevent procreation. It happens to be unlikely, but they are not taking any steps to stop it. Their sex act is the perfectly natural, male-female, ejaculation-in-vagina, sexual intercourse. Anything else is not their fault and they can’t be blamed; even if they foresee it, they do not cause it.

And that is why NFP is allowed, because it is merely taking advantage of a foreseen infertile period with just reason, not delibrately causing the exclusion of procreative ends from the act.

 

[setter]

cynic:

haha talk about a contradiction, the couple using nfp in the previouse paragraph are also celebrating their vows while being ''emotionally unopen to life".

As far as I can tell from posts here, sexual desires themselves must be ‘ordered’ towards procreation. **Instead on wanting intimacy with your spouse - which is refered to as lust - the only desire in the act should be to “act as a co-creator with God” ** . **ie it should not be a personal thing ** - it’s a invitation made directly to God to produce new life. That should be the reason for doing it. The pleasure is incidental, a means to the end. Considering this, then how is a couple using nfp - to deliberately reduce the chances of conceiving, or already pregnant- when there no chance at all , how are their desires not lustful? How are their desires any different form a couple using artificial contraception? The means may be different, but the desires are the same.

Your observation and whole argument rests on relegating conjugal sexual desire and pleasure as a secondary byproduct and strickly self-serving and object oriented. Spousal sexual love and desire becomes “lust” when the covenantal relationship is no longer honored.

 

[vluvski]

cynic:

haha talk about a contradiction, the couple using nfp in the previouse paragraph are also celebrating their vows while being ''emotionally unopen to life".

It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone whose deep-seated misunderstanding of and contempt for the Catholic church prevents them from being open to the truth.

 

[1ke]

GordonBOPS:

OK - I agree but I think maybe you need to say that both the objective and subjective intent of the act must be toward the procreative good. If the intent behind the act objectively is outside the purpose of leading to new life - then its immoral. HOwever, if the objective intent is OK, but subjective intent is one that is contraceptive or against procreation (without a serious justification) that is also immoral.

I did not say anything regarding subjective intent. I said subjective result. Your OP was about post-menopausal women and your “subjective intent” portion of the above response is unclear and doesn’t make sense to me.

GordonBOPS:

So, we could have a subjective intent on a homosexual act of wishing they could have a children but the objective view is that the act clearly could not acheive that end - then that is not proper. On the other hand, you could have an OK objective intent (meaning its clearly occuring in the way that it ought to) but the subjective intent is to avoid pregnancy - without a serious justification - that too is immoral.

Your example makes no sense to me.

GordonBOPS:

Any takers? Both the objective view, and the subject intent must be in line to avoid sin. Thus, a homosexual act can never be moral because the objective view is that it never was and never ever could result in transmission of life in ANY circumstance known to man.

You’ve gone off on a very odd tangent.

 

[1ke]

CuriousInIL:

I will ask again a question to which I have not yet received an satisfying answer. What does the bolded sentence mean–specifically when is an act of intercourse “objectively unitive”? When is it not? (Many posts have discussed the issue of objectively procreative.)

To be objectively unitive it cannot be a forced act of intercourse-- marital rape would not be objectively unitive. Coerced intercourse also denies the unitive element. Consent, given freely, is required for a unitive element to be present.

 

[AndyF]

GordonBOPS:

I’m needing some direction on this issue: The Church obviously doesn’t teach it is immoral for a post-monopause woman to have sex with her spouse - even though there is no possible procreative end. What is the rationale?

Your right it doesn’t. But sex is also an expression of love between
married couples. Whether, the sex act is able to carry through with it’s purpose of procreation is up to God. To us this is impossible, to God it isn’t. Abraham prayed for a child well up to his old age when is wife was beyond child bearing age. God finally granted his wish when his wife was very old.

Andy

 

[cynic]

setter:

Your observation and whole argument rests on relegating conjugal sexual desire and pleasure as a secondary byproduct .

your not allowed pleasure and/or emotional gratification from the act are not to be sought ins isolation! that’s 90% of the argument made against contaception.