Simple way to understand Church teachings on Sex

[valient_Lucy]

I think the problem with the OP’s argument stems from this.

From the Compendium to the Catechsm of the Catholic Church:

Question 496: What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life.) No one may break the inseperable connection which God has established between these **two meanings **of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other.

For further information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church numbers 2362-2367.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I hope I don’t prevent you from reading further on this.

I too am surprised by the reactions of my fellow Catholics to my post. I really did not think it was that controversial. I looked at the various teachings in the Catachism on Homosexuality, masturbation, Artificial Birth Control, etc and the common denominator seemed to me to be that each of these things, and other deviations, contradict the basic physiological function of the sex act.

Society disconnects “sex” from “procreation” and as a result sees no problem with things like Homosexual acts, masturbation, sodomy, and whatever else “feels good”. Even disordered acts, they say, can take place between “loving people”. What society can’t say is that these disordered acts fulfill the basic biological function for which the sexual organs are designed.

Peace
James

I have read them in the past, and the experience of yourself, me and many others confirms that they are not straightforward. I understand them, but…(I have been given an infraction for commenting on Church documents so I’ll leave it at that).

I’d proffer my take on what sexuality is about and what it should be used for, but I would get savaged like you have.

 

[JRKH]

If, as you say, the ONLY reason to have sex is to try to conceive a child, there is no reason to have sex if you have no such hope.

Furthermore, as another poster said, if the only purpose of sex is procreation, then what is sinful about IVF?

Please point out where I have said that the only reason to have sex is to conceive a child.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think the problem with the OP’s argument stems from this.

From the Compendium to the Catechsm of the Catholic Church:

Question 496: What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life.) No one may break the inseperable connection which God has established between these **two meanings **of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other.

For further information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church numbers 2362-2367.

And How has my description in the OP seperated these two. The Spouses must give themselves to each other and become “one flesh” (unitive), just as designed by God, in order to be, - let’s say it all together no - “pro-cre-a-tive”. That is open to life.

All of the Churches teachings on what is and is not properely ordered in the sex act points to this. That God, by his design, requires the couple to be 1) male and female, 2) united, 3) open to life.

My description of the sex act - It’s purpose as designed by God, and the Church’s teachings that support this design by accepting that which is unitive and procreative, and rejecting that which is not, seem quite in line to me.

Peace
James

 

[valient_Lucy]

And How has my description in the OP seperated these two. The Spouses must give themselves to each other and become “one flesh” (unitive), just as designed by God, in order to be, - let’s say it all together no - “pro-cre-a-tive”. That is open to life.

All of the Churches teachings on what is and is not properely ordered in the sex act points to this. That God, by his design, requires the couple to be 1) male and female, 2) united, 3) open to life.

My description of the sex act - It’s purpose as designed by God, and the Church’s teachings that support this design by accepting that which is unitive and procreative, and rejecting that which is not, seem quite in line to me.

Peace
James

How God designed Sex in Humans:

1. 
   ]Sex in general was designed by God for one purpose and one purpose only, the procreation of the species. It is no different in humans than in any other higher form of creature on the planet.]The single and core purpose of the sex act is to deliver sperm from the male to the female for the purpose of fertilization of an egg - no more and no less than this.
   *]Everything else about the sex act, the design of our bodies, psychological attractions, emotional connections, physical pleasures etc. are all designed and geared toward that single goal of delivery and acceptance of delivery.

1. 
   Please explain to me how the first item in your list, “Sex was designed for God for one purpose and one purpose only: the procreation of the species,” does not violate the Church’s teaching on the twofold purposes of sex. The Church teaches that sex was created for two purposes: procreative and unitive. Your list CLEARLY states that sex was only created for one purpose, procreation.
   
   For clarification purposes, what do you think the phrase “unitive” means? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding going on.

 

[mark_a]

How God designed Sex in Humans:

1. 
   *]Sex in general was designed by God for one purpose and one purpose only, the procreation of the species. It is no different in humans than in any other higher form of creature on the planet.
   *]The single and core purpose of the sex act is to deliver sperm from the male to the female for the purpose of fertilization of an egg - no more and no less than this.
   *]Everything else about the sex act, the design of our bodies, psychological attractions, emotional connections, physical pleasures etc. are all designed and geared toward that single goal of delivery and acceptance of delivery.
   
   This then is the natural and properly ordered sex act as designed by God for humans.
   
   The Church may dress up her teachings in many more words and perhaps more subtle language, addressing some broader theological aspects, but every Church teaching on sex is ordered out of these 3 basic principles.
   
   Anything that deviates from what God has naturally ordered is, by its very definition, “disordered”. Anything that is not ordered to God is sinful. Therefore, anything “disordered” is sinful.
   The Church frowns upon anything that does not meet, or interferes with the basic and properly ordered function of the sex act as described above.
   Homosexuality? Cannot reproduce = disordered
   Condoms? Cannot deliver sperm to egg = disordered
   Tubes tied? Cannot deliver egg to Sperm = disordered
   And so on down the line.
   
   I believe that, if one looks carefully at every teaching of the Catholic Church on sexual issues one will find that it boils down to this. The Church’s teaching points us toward properly ordered relations as designed by our Loving God. This holds true for sex or anything else in life.
   
   So - I in the end it is The Church, and not secular society that is the great defender of “sex” as properly designed in the human creature. This hold strue whether one accepts that God designed it, or “nature” developed it that way.
   
   Peace
   James

1. 
   With a quick read and not a lot of contemplation, you’ll find me agreeable.
   
   A lot of folks here seem to be interpreting your thoughts to mean that sex can’t be procreative and enjoyable.

 

[valient_Lucy]

With a quick read and not a lot of contemplation, you’ll find me agreeable.

A lot of folks here seem to be interpreting your thoughts to mean that sex can’t be procreative and enjoyable.

It’s not the enjoyment part, it’s the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that the sexual act has two purposes, procreative and unitive (which is different than pleasure.) The OP is saying that sex has only one purpose.

 

[valient_Lucy]

One last thought before I go do some cleaning.

Suppose a husband and wife have vaginal intercourse, but during the sex, they intentionally imagine that they are having sex with someone other than their spouse.

Have they sinned? If so, why?

 

[mark_a]

I hope I don’t prevent you from reading further on this.

I too am surprised by the reactions of my fellow Catholics to my post. I really did not think it was that controversial. I looked at the various teachings in the Catachism on Homosexuality, masturbation, Artificial Birth Control, etc and the common denominator seemed to me to be that each of these things, and other deviations, contradict the basic physiological function of the sex act.

Society disconnects “sex” from “procreation” and as a result sees no problem with things like Homosexual acts, masturbation, sodomy, and whatever else “feels good”. Even disordered acts, they say, can take place between “loving people”. What society can’t say is that these disordered acts fulfill the basic biological function for which the sexual organs are designed.

Peace
James

For what its worth, I can agree with you. The common denominator of blessed sex acts is that it be procreative; after all, contracepting spouses, unmarried heterosexuals, and un-marriable homosexuals see their sex acts as uniative.

 

[valient_Lucy]

For what its worth, I can agree with you. The common denominator of blessed sex acts is that it be procreative; after all, contracepting spouses, unmarried heterosexuals, and un-marriable homosexuals see their sex acts as uniative.

See post above. A husband and wife have normal, vaginal intercourse. In fact, let’s say that she conceives a child. However, while they were having sex, both the husband and wife intentionally imangine that they are having sex with someone else who is not their spouse. Have they sinned? If so, why?

 

[mark_a]

See post above. A husband and wife have normal, vaginal intercourse. In fact, let’s say that she conceives a child. However, while they were having sex, both the husband and wife intentionally imangine that they are having sex with someone else who is not their spouse. Have they sinned? If so, why?

I think you are splitting hairs about the original intent of the post.

As for the above question, the intentional imaginings seem sinful to me, but I really don’t know. It seems like there’s a lot of potential for being put in the doghouse too.

Tell me your thoughts on the matter.

I wonder if the same scenario would be a sin for a polygamist?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I don’t really see anything controversial in what the OP is attempting to say; it is simply an appeal to natural ends and purposes. It is the same kind of argument used in the Aristotelian/Thomistic approach to ethics or the same sort of argument you might see in the pre-vatican II period.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

I don’t see anything at odds with the CCC in the OP’s post.

He is describing simply the phisical design of sex and not negating the unifying purpose of sex.

As an example.

A screw driver is designed to twist a small theaded mettal device into some medium using the tip.

Using a screw driver to hammer in a nail = disorderd
Using a screwdriver to stab someone in the chest = disordered
Trying to get a screw in using the handle = disordered
You are using the screwdriver to performa an act it was not designed to do

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

I don’t see anything at odds with the CCC in the OP’s post.

He is describing simply the physical design of sex and not negating the unifying purpose of sex.

As an example.​

A screw driver is designed to twist a small threaded metal device into some medium using the tip.

Using a screw driver to hammer in a nail = disordered
Using a screwdriver to stab someone in the chest = disordered
Trying to get a screw in using the handle = disordered

You are using the screwdriver to perform an act it was not designed to do, or in a manner which it was not designed to be used.​

The screwdriver was designed to have only one proper usage.

However the overarching “purpose” of the screwdriver is to build things.

Likewise, sex was designed to physically accomplish one objective. However, in the great scheme of things, sex as the Church says, has more than one purpose: just as the “purpose” of the screwdriver is not simpley to insert screws.

 

[JRKH]

Please explain to me how the first item in your list, “Sex was designed for God for one purpose and one purpose only: the procreation of the species,” does not violate the Church’s teaching on the twofold purposes of sex. The Church teaches that sex was created for two purposes: procreative and unitive. Your list CLEARLY states that sex was only created for one purpose, procreation.

For clarification purposes, what do you think the phrase “unitive” means? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding going on.

“Sex in General” is the key. This means sex as designed and functioning across all of God’s creatures. The Physiological aspects of the procreative process.

As to unitive this can have both physical and emotional aspects. Both are important. For th epurposes of determining disordered sexual activities, I would see unitive as indicating intercourse.

Peace
James

 

[Newbie2]

Was my explanation really that bad??

Please tell me where what I have written contradicts Church teaching. I’d really like to know so that I can refine my understanding.
Peace
James

“Sex in general was designed by God for **one purpose and one purpose only” is the error.

Interesting point.

However a pregnancy can be seen as simply another “infertile time” and*** I have never suggested that sex during an inferitle period is disordered.*** At least I don’t recall saying any such thing.

Peace
James

Actually, you did. If there is one purpose only, namely procreation, then a deliberate act during what a couple believes to be a fertile time goes against your “one purpose”.

This all makes me even less motivated to look at Church documents on sexuality, given the savaging I’ve seen.

“Savaging” LOL. When did disagreement become “savaging”?

Why??
Sex that is “open to life” (church teaching) and is properly engaged in, (vaginal ejaculation only, also church teaching) is not disordered. ** If there are purely natural reasons why conception is unlikely to occur, that does not change that the act itself is being properly engaged in.**If you’ll recall - St John was conceived to an “Old Couple” who were considered both infertile early on and then “post-meneposal”. Abraham and Sarah also conceived very late in life.
**If the sex act is properly engaged in there can always be “hope” of procreation. **

Peace
James

Yes, but the “hope” of couples deliberately engaging during infertile times is that there will be no procreation…although they are open to it happening if it does happen. This is the point I think you’re missing.

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life.) No one may break the inseperable connection which God has established between these **two meanings **of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other.

.

Exactly, when, like the OP, the primary purpose of the act is reduced to a one-fold purpose.

Please explain to me how the first item in your list, “Sex was designed for God for one purpose and one purpose only: the procreation of the species,” does not violate the Church’s teaching on the twofold purposes of sex. The Church teaches that sex was created for two purposes: procreative and unitive. Your list CLEARLY states that sex was only created for one purpose, procreation.
.

Again, exactly.

It’s not the enjoyment part, it’s the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that the sexual act has two purposes, procreative and unitive (which is different than pleasure.) The OP is saying that sex has only one purpose.

And a third time. Amen.

Likewise, sex was designed to physically accomplish one objective.

Not in humans. Otherwise, we reduct the act to that of mere animals.

If sex were designed, in humans, “to physically accomplish one objective”, women would be receptive to intercourse only during fertile periods, as animals are. They are not. Women are different from animals.

 

[JRKH]

“Sex in General” is the key. This means sex as designed and functioning across all of God’s creatures. The Physiological aspects of the procreative process.

Peace
James

EDIT - That would be the higher creatures that utilize male and female reproduction. I was mainly thinking in terms of mammilian reproduction.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thank you to Marka, kostyaJMJ and DeOppressoLiber for your kind posts.

Peace
James

 

[valient_Lucy]

I think you are splitting hairs about the original intent of the post.

As for the above question, the intentional imaginings seem sinful to me, but I really don’t know. It seems like there’s a lot of potential for being put in the doghouse too.

Tell me your thoughts on the matter.

I wonder if the same scenario would be a sin for a polygamist?

In the above scenario, both the husband and wife are sinning. Sex must be BOTH procreative (which this scenario is) AND unitive. The spouses must make a gift of themselves to each other, renewing thier wedding vows. A husband cannot give himself to his wife if he is thinking about another woman, and a woman cannot give herself to her husband if she is thinking about another man.

BUT, if sex is only procreative, then the above scenario is perfectly licit. It would also be perfectly licit for a man to insist on playing pornographic videos in the background while he and his wife had sex, since this does not violate the procreative act. It would also be perfectly licit for either person to do something violent or humiliating to the other person, as long as the act remained procreative. For example, it would be perfectly licit for one partner to slap the other partner or try to choke the other partner during sex, as long as the sexual act itself was procreative. IF the only purpose for sex is procreation, then ALL of these acts are licit as long as the sexual act is open to life.

As for polygamists, polygamy is a sin, so it would be sinful even for a man with multiple “wives.”

 

[valient_Lucy]

One last scenario. A man rapes his wife, and she conceives a child. The rape was procreative.

Was it a sin? If so, why? If so, why not?